qmail Digest 29 Mar 2001 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1318
Topics (messages 59871 through 59962):
Re: DNS question
59871 by: David T. Ashley
59872 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
oh no, not another relaying question...
59873 by: Gary Law
59881 by: James Raftery
59884 by: Charles Cazabon
Syncing IMAP mailboxes
59874 by: Gavin Cameron
59908 by: Mike Jackson
qmail - Ezmlm
59875 by: Bird
59877 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
Re: qmailadmin 0.42
59876 by: Rodrigo P. Telles
Re: Can you help me ??(about limit of the number of per process file hand
59878 by: Henning Brauer
59944 by: Baoguo Xu
59956 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: qmail and sms
59879 by: Henning Brauer
qmail & imap
59880 by: Martin Edlman
Re: Update on qmail/Outlook hang
59882 by: Andrew Richards
Re: rcphosts error
59883 by: Charles Cazabon
Alternate MDA
59885 by: Alex Le Fevre
59890 by: Charles Cazabon
59893 by: Alex Le Fevre
59894 by: Charles Cazabon
qmail remote / local problems ...
59886 by: Simon Woodward
Maildir file naming convention
59887 by: Subba Rao
59889 by: Charles Cazabon
59895 by: Mark Delany
59898 by: Charles Cazabon
59915 by: Mark Delany
59918 by: Peter van Dijk
59921 by: Charles Cazabon
59923 by: Charles Cazabon
59926 by: Peter van Dijk
59927 by: Bruce Guenter
59935 by: Charles Cazabon
59939 by: Mark Delany
59946 by: Charles Cazabon
need to forward to 2 addresses
59888 by: Virginia Chism
59891 by: Charles Cazabon
59892 by: Michael Peppard
59916 by: Virginia Chism
Re: Random Bounce
59896 by: jean
59897 by: Niles
59900 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: [OT] supervise sshd?
59899 by: Bruce Guenter
unable to get BCC mail in Qmail
59901 by: Pradeep Tapase
59902 by: Johan Almqvist
59909 by: Charles Cazabon
59920 by: Henning Brauer
Removing from queue
59903 by: Alex Le Fevre
59910 by: Charles Cazabon
59940 by: Steve Smith
Rewriting domain name on outbound messages
59904 by: Dion.Vansevenant.mro.com
59911 by: Charles Cazabon
59951 by: Jörgen Persson
archives
59905 by: Kirti S. Bajwa
59912 by: Charles Cazabon
59917 by: Virginia Chism
Subject per recipient
59906 by: Michael T. Babcock
59913 by: Charles Cazabon
RE:RE: how can i run qmail on a port that is not 25 under tcpserver?
59907 by: Lucas
sqwebmail-1.2.5
59914 by: Bill Parker
qmail and hyphens in domain names
59919 by: Dean Browett
Problems getting qmail to work properly....
59922 by: John Cope
59928 by: Charles Cazabon
59929 by: Tim Hunter
Qmail Implementation as anti-spam for Ms Exchange
59924 by: hantunes
faster than bcc
59925 by: Brett
59930 by: Charles Cazabon
59931 by: Peter van Dijk
59932 by: Dave Sill
59933 by: Mark Delany
59934 by: Brett
59936 by: Charles Cazabon
59937 by: Brett
[announcement] qmail-smtpd-requireauth version 0.10 available
59938 by: Danny Burkes
59962 by: Krzysztof Dabrowski
Re: migrating from MS Exchange to q-mail
59941 by: James R Grinter
SMTP not working .....
59942 by: John Cope
59943 by: Chris Johnson
59945 by: Jack Thomas
help ( pop authenticate with ldap )
59947 by: lucky
inquire
59948 by: KIM
59949 by: Jeremy Suo-Anttila
email message body
59950 by: Essy Ren
shell vs qmail
59952 by: alexus
qmail-ldap patch
59953 by: Elena Escolano Torner
59961 by: Andre Oppermann
Maildir problem
59954 by: lkhanna.hughes-ecomm.com
59955 by: Gerrit Pape
Limit outbound connections but not for all domains
59957 by: Ińigo Martínez Lasala
Not able to receive BCC mail in Qmail
59958 by: Pradeep Tapase
59960 by: Gerrit Pape
A real "bouncesaying"
59959 by: Johan Almqvist
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Ashley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 6:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: DNS question
I read the HOWTO for q-mail, but there is one thing I don't understand.
It states that I need a DNS and that my machines have to be listed in the
DNS for qmail to work.
I have a hardware firewall (one of those $150 boxes) guarding my DSL line
with a static IP. Is it good enough that my static IP has a reverse-DNS
resolution, or do my "internal" addresses need to resolve as well. For
example, my static IP is 64.129.57.5, but the server (internally, behind the
firewall) is 192.168.0.33. Clearly, trying to reverse-DNS the latter will
lead to trouble, whereas the former is OK.
It isn't clear to me what is meant by the statements about DNS in the HOWTO
or what qmail needs to be viable.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks, Dave.
> firewall) is 192.168.0.33. Clearly, trying to reverse-DNS the latter will
> lead to trouble, whereas the former is OK.
You are using NAT - if you only want to send email from your internal
network to the world and get your mails by "polling" it somehow you get no
problem (except that your netblock may be blocked by some mail servers).
If you want to provide services like smtp to the world you have two
choices:
a) establish that service on your NAT box (I assume it's impossible on
that $155 box)
b) your box must be able to redirect defined ports to hosts at your
internal network. Most NAT devices can do that, some cannot.
Regarding DNS:
If you provide services to the world always the address of your firewall
box is visible to the world. Your internal addresses don't matter.
Regards, Frank
Hi
I have a roaming user who is having severe problems sending mail via ISP.
Consequently, I need to let her relay urgently. She authenticates using IMAP from
Outlook on a Mac (os9.0.4). I only installed Qmail two weeks ago thus I'm a little
new. I've read the archive and as I understand it I have two options:
1/ Apply the patch to allow relaying on the basis of the senders addy. (
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html
)
I have no idea how one applies a patch... :o) a pointer to a man page or how-to
would be great.
2/ Slot in Bruce Guenter's relay-ctrl thingy (
http://em.ca/~bruceg/relay-ctrl/current/relay-ctrl-2.5.tar.gz ). Looks great but
requries "tcpserver with qmail-smtpd". Tcpserver is in my /usr/local/bin but doesn't
look like it is called from inetd :-
bash-2.04# cat /etc/inetd.conf | grep qmail
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
[snip]
do I just substitute tcpserver for tcp-env and follow the instructions in Bruce's page?
My OS is OpenBSD 2.8
Please note I'm looking for the FASTEST solution. My roaming user is on a ship in the
north sea, is dependent on flaky GSM/radio/sat links and is trying to get some work
done.
Thanks in anticipation
Gary
PS for the sake of completeness, here is the relevant lines from rc.local and
/var/qmail/rc
bash-2.04# cat /etc/rc.local | grep qmail
if [ -x /var/qmail/rc ]; then
echo -n ' qmail'; /var/qmail/rc &
bash-2.04# cat /var/qmail/rc
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:18:17PM +0100, Gary Law wrote:
> I have a roaming user who is having severe problems sending mail via
> ISP. Consequently, I need to let her relay urgently. She authenticates
> using IMAP from Outlook on a Mac (os9.0.4).
>
> 1/ Apply the patch to allow relaying on the basis of the senders addy.
> (http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html)
Not a good option unless - forgeing a sender address is trivial.
> I have no idea how one applies a patch... :o) a pointer to a man
> page or how-to would be great.
'man patch' :)
> 2/ Slot in Bruce Guenter's relay-ctrl thingy (
> http://em.ca/~bruceg/relay-ctrl/current/relay-ctrl-2.5.tar.gz ). Looks
> great but requries "tcpserver with qmail-smtpd". Tcpserver is in my
> /usr/local/bin but doesn't look like it is called from inetd :_
>
> do I just substitute tcpserver for tcp-env and follow the instructions
> in Bruce's page?
No. tcpserver *replaces* inetd (for running qmail-smtpd). Follow the
instructions at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#tcpserver-smtpd
for using tcpserver to start qmail-stmpd. Then you can follow Bruce's
instructions.
Regards,
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54)
"It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's
freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Gary Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a roaming user who is having severe problems sending mail via
> ISP. Consequently, I need to let her relay urgently. She authenticates
> using IMAP from Outlook on a Mac (os9.0.4). I only installed Qmail two
> weeks ago thus I'm a little new. I've read the archive and as I
> understand it I have two options:
>
> 1/ Apply the patch to allow relaying on the basis of the senders addy.
> ( http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html)
>
> I have no idea how one applies a patch...
It's insecure, and if you're not comfortable applying patches and
compiling software, you're best not to use it anyway.
> 2/ Slot in Bruce Guenter's relay-ctrl thingy (
> http://em.ca/~bruceg/relay-ctrl/current/relay-ctrl-2.5.tar.gz ). Looks
> great but requries "tcpserver with qmail-smtpd". Tcpserver is in my
> /usr/local/bin but doesn't look like it is called from inetd :-
relay-ctrl is excellent, simple, and can take as little as a couple of
minutes to install. Your installation will be slightly more difficult,
as you're not already using tcpserver to start qmail-smtpd. You want to
remove the qmail-smtpd entry from inetd.conf and HUP inetd to stop it
listening on port 25. Then have a tcpserver listening on port 25,
starting qmail-smtpd through the usual chain plus relay-ctrl-allow.
Dave Sill's "Life with qmail" contains a sample script for starting
qmail-smtpd through tcpserver.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Anybody out there know of a tool that will allow me to sync an IMAP mailbox
that contains about 25 additional IMAP folders apart from the INBOX???
I've tried isync but that will only do one folder at a time. I'd like a tool
that I can point to my INBOX and from there let it sync everything.
Thanks in advance,
Gavin
Gavin Cameron wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Anybody out there know of a tool that will allow me to sync an IMAP mailbox
> that contains about 25 additional IMAP folders apart from the INBOX???
>
> I've tried isync but that will only do one folder at a time. I'd like a tool
> that I can point to my INBOX and from there let it sync everything.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Gavin
- Fetchmail, pay close attention to the switches to leave the mail on
the server.
- Netscape Messenger
- Outlook Express
- Eudora
Mike
dear,
i aready have qmail and ezmlm for maillist,
i make [EMAIL PROTECTED] as maillist ,
why if i send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , qmail not found this mailbox ,
it's work only i do with manually with ezmlm-sub
what wrong with my qmail setting .... or ezmlm-idx ?
thanks
Bird
> dear,
>
> i aready have qmail and ezmlm for maillist,
> i make [EMAIL PROTECTED] as maillist ,
> why if i send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , qmail not found this mailbox ,
> it's work only i do with manually with ezmlm-sub
> what wrong with my qmail setting .... or ezmlm-idx ?
>
1.) What was your command to set up the list?
2.) Is domain.com local for your machine?
Regards, Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have the same problem to compile Qmailadmin-0.42, I solve this problem
with this option:
cd /home/vpopmail/include/
cp -fp vauth.h vpopmail.h vpopmail_config.h /your/source/qmailadmin/directory
and:
LIBS="-L/home/vpopmail/lib -lvpopmail" DEFS="/home/vpopmail/include" \
./configure --your-optios-here
make
make install-strip
No more
********Generated by fortune*********
Água mole, pedra dura, tanto bate até que molha!
UIN: 14414330 - URL: http://www.dicaslinux.com.br
9:00am up 21:38 12 users load average: 0.55
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jesús Arnáiz wrote:
RPT Hi!
RPT
RPT I try to compile qmailadmin0.42, but I get this errors:
RPT
RPT ----
RPT
RPT [<root@integrity> /servers/src/qmailadmin-0.42]#
RPT ./configure -enable-cgibindir=/servers/apache/cgi-bin
--enable-htmldir=/servers/apache
RPT /htdocs -enable-qmaildir=/servers/qmail --enable-ezmlmdir=/servers/ezmlm/
RPT
RPT
RPT [<root@integrity> /servers/src/qmailadmin-0.42]# make
RPT make all-recursive
RPT gcc -I. -g -O2 -c qmailadmin.c
RPT qmailadmin.c:30: vpopmail.h: No such file or directory
RPT qmailadmin.c:31: vauth.h: No such file or directory
RPT *** Error code 1
RPT
RPT Stop in /servers/src/qmailadmin-0.42.
RPT *** Error code 1
RPT
RPT Stop in /servers/src/qmailadmin-0.42.
RPT *** Error code 1
RPT
RPT Stop in /servers/src/qmailadmin-0.42.
RPT -----
RPT
RPT I use vpopmail 4.9.6-1
RPT
RPT any help??
RPT
RPT Thanks in advance
RPT
RPT
RPT --
RPT Jesús Arnáiz
RPT 0z0ne Inc I+D/IT Manager
RPT http://www.0z0ne.com
RPT mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RPT
RPT
RPT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEUEARECAAYFAjrB3FoACgkQzW1cKu9OlHcfXgCYwkNW7eeJdailoXlI+NFPVA3m
igCdHmdrZW0VAkVItJKsAX9VAFYHRZw=
=em8M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 05:27:21PM +0800, Baoguo Xu wrote:
> ./chkspawn
> Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
> This means that the qmail daemons could crash if you set the run-time
> concurrency higher than 509. So I'm going to insist that the concurrency
> limit in conf-spawn be at most 509. Right now it's 600.
> *** Error code 1
Addind -DFD_SETSIZE=4096 (or more) to conf-cc should be enough. You don't
need to change OS'es code (at least on *BSD)
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Dear Henning,
I try ,but not success. There is content in file conf-cc:
cc -O2
DFD_SETSIZE=4096
This will be used to compile .c files.
Can you help you!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henning Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Can you help me ??(about limit of the number of per process file hand
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 05:27:21PM +0800, Baoguo Xu wrote:
> > ./chkspawn
> > Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
> > This means that the qmail daemons could crash if you set the run-time
> > concurrency higher than 509. So I'm going to insist that the concurrency
> > limit in conf-spawn be at most 509. Right now it's 600.
> > *** Error code 1
>
> Addind -DFD_SETSIZE=4096 (or more) to conf-cc should be enough. You don't
> need to change OS'es code (at least on *BSD)
>
> --
> Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
> Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
> http://www.bsws.de | Germany
>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:04:59AM +0800, Baoguo Xu wrote:
> Dear Henning,
> I try ,but not success. There is content in file conf-cc:
> cc -O2
> DFD_SETSIZE=4096
Put it on one line, like:
cc -O2 -DFD_SETSIZE=4096
Greetz, Peter.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:52:56PM +0700, Essy Ren wrote:
> i have install sms_client-2.0.8y
> i live in Indonesia
> and here is the output :
You are not really asking for help about a proram called sms_client on the
qmail list, are you?
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Hello,
I'm looking for some imap server supporting Maildirs. I found links to
Courier-IMAP, imap-2000, ... on qmail homepage.
The best looking one to me is Courier IMAP as it offers modular
authentication (including vpopmail's vchkpw which I use).
I'd like to have it supporting tcpserver (from daemontools). I found a
note in Courier IMAP docs how to do it, so maybe I'll be able to make it
working.
Anyway I'd like to know if someone uses Courier IMAP with qmail
(installed from qmail+patches.rpms by Bruce Guenter) and vpopmail.
* What pop3d to use?
The one from qmail or the one from Courier IMAP?
Some comparation?
* Which auth. module to use?
authvchkpw which supports existing cdb files from qmail/vpopmail
or authuserdb from Courier IMAP?
Courier IMAP pages recommend to convert vchkpw to userdb, why? Is
there some performace decrease/increase?
Please let me know if I can expect some difficulities when using Courier
IMAP with qmail/vpopmail, and how to make it working as fast and as
easily as possible. Some hints are welcome.
Regards, Edas
> Just a quick update on a problem I queried the list on a few days ago, in
> which Outlook sometimes hangs on a message. Doing some extensive tcpdump
> tracing and analysis, we've found that Outlook hangs in at least the
> following situations:
>
> 1) Periods (.) in a message that end up at the very end of a tcp/ip packet
> during transport to the Outlook client.
> 2) Null (zero) characters in a message (not sure if they, too, have to be at
> the end of a packet or not.
>
> This appears to be a problem with Outlook 98 and 2000. Installing Office
> 2000 SR-1 seems to fix the problem, at least in the cases we've seen.
>
> By the way, nulls in messages appear to also hang Eudora (not sure which
> version), though we only have one confirmed case of that.
>
> Hope this is useful to somebody out there in qmail land....
Just to add that this also affects other Micros**t products -
"Windows Messaging" - an older MUA - being affected too.
Well researched Carey.
cheers,
Andrew.
chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Starting: qmail pop tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
> smtp
>
> I think that it has something to do with the fact that the file
> /var/vpopmai/etc/tcp.smtp.cbd is owned by vpopmail:vchkpw
Nope. Something is already listening to the port you're trying to bind
to (probably 25). It may be something in your inetd.conf/xinetd
configuration, or you may have another tcpserver already bound to that
port.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking to implement maildrop system-wide, so that
I don't have to fiddle around with setting it up for
each user that wants mail filtering. I've been told by
maildrop's author that I should just install it as my
default mail delivery agent. I've been all over the
qmail.org page, Life with Qmail, and all of that good
stuff, and I don't see a lot about switching MDAs.
Could anyone point me to a good resource on the
subject?
Thanks,
Alex Le Fevre
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
Alex Le Fevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking to implement maildrop system-wide, so that I don't have to
> fiddle around with setting it up for each user that wants mail
> filtering. I've been told by maildrop's author that I should just
> install it as my default mail delivery agent. I've been all over the
> qmail.org page, Life with Qmail, and all of that good stuff, and I
> don't see a lot about switching MDAs. Could anyone point me to a good
> resource on the subject?
It's the first argument to qmail-start, supplied by your rc/start
script. If you want maildrop to be your default delivery agent, supply
something like "| /usr/bin/maildrop" as that argument. Note that users
will still be able to override this choice with a .qmail file.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Note that users
> will still be able to override this choice with a
> .qmail file.
Thus, you're saying, if there's a .qmail file, the
.mailfilter file gets ignored?
Alex
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
Alex Le Fevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... Note that users will still be able to override this choice with a
> > .qmail file.
>
> Thus, you're saying, if there's a .qmail file, the .mailfilter file gets
> ignored?
If the system-wide default delivery instruction is "| /usr/bin/maildrop",
and I have a .qmail file in my home directory which contains "./Maildir/",
qmail will not call maildrop for mail delivered to me@yourdomain -- it
will instead file it straight to my Maildir, as my .qmail file instructs it
to. Such are the joys of allowing users to control the disposition of
their own mail.
I don't know what ".mailfilter" is. I'm assuming it's the maildrop equivalent
of a .procmailrc file, but I use neither, so I can't tell you that.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Okay ...
Simple enough set up, I have a box on the end of a cable modem, I get an
SMTP feed for my main domain from an ISP which holds primary and secondary MX
for it, but only from my addresses, (for example [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
This part is no problem, my box accepts and delivers these mails
correctly.
The next part of the scenario is, I have some mates with addresses (eg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) who have pop boxes at this ISP and get
their mail direct from those.
The problem occurs when I want my machines from my LAN to send out mail
(through my SMTP server) to one of these other [EMAIL PROTECTED] which according
to MX is not my server, but according to control/virtualdomains and the
rules I have in assign, it is ....
How do I get the box to distiguish between local and remote delivery so I
can continue to get my mail via SMTP feed, but I can still post out to
other users and domain.com who's popboxes are held at my ISP ?
Thoughts / Comments ?
Simon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQCVAwUBOsH+v+GAyrBtc/IxAQGrpgP9Fk/+BYD/T1p4ihWwoHK3/LQW12tnXmpL
6D25wh/ndEnrdiVTBPNOAstumWxwwJ/B4jbZX1sMLJ4fw3dhqKFERGivyR4PotmQ
kv4xdu5mmkQ7vhRUh5difS/kzTpa9xLJVRS6332dYu3/EoX9jkNndgUrMm3SrhA0
GWT5NY1VaXY=
=XhOG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I use Maildir format for my incoming mail. In the past, I have used maildrop
as my MDA and now I have switched to procmail. I use Mutt as my MUA and have
converted (today) some email from mbox to maildir format. The naming
convention of each mail is different for procmail vs maildrop (and mutt
converted) email. The format is listed as follows,
-rw------- 1 subba users 3599 Mar 28 07:32 985764747.20966_23.myhost:2,S
-rw------- 1 subba users 28883 Mar 28 01:55 __XE,5RUw6.myhost:2,S
How are these random names generated? Is this name generation the property of
MUA such as mutt also? I thought it was the domain of MDAs.
Thank you for any info.
--
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/subba9/
Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use Maildir format for my incoming mail. In the past, I have used maildrop
> as my MDA and now I have switched to procmail. I use Mutt as my MUA and have
> converted (today) some email from mbox to maildir format. The naming
> convention of each mail is different for procmail vs maildrop (and mutt
> converted) email.
The way names are chosen for files in Maildir/tmp (which are moved to
Maildir/new when delivery is complete) should not differ among agents.
The right way to do it is clearly spelled out at:
http://cr.yp.to/proto/maildir.html
It's necessary for all agents to use the same rules to prevent
collisions.
> The format is listed as follows,
>
> -rw------- 1 subba users 3599 Mar 28 07:32 985764747.20966_23.myhost:2,S
> -rw------- 1 subba users 28883 Mar 28 01:55 __XE,5RUw6.myhost:2,S
The first one is correct. The second one does not follow djb's rules
for naming the file. If procmail wrote it, your version of procmail is
broken.
> How are these random names generated? Is this name generation the property of
> MUA such as mutt also? I thought it was the domain of MDAs.
It's part of the Maildir spec. The MDA names the file; the MUA can add
flags to it after it first sees it. The ":2,S" is added by mutt, and is
legal.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:52:58AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> The right way to do it is clearly spelled out at:
> http://cr.yp.to/proto/maildir.html
That's true.
> It's necessary for all agents to use the same rules to prevent
> collisions.
Ok as far as it goes, but..
> > The format is listed as follows,
> >
> > -rw------- 1 subba users 3599 Mar 28 07:32 985764747.20966_23.myhost:2,S
> > -rw------- 1 subba users 28883 Mar 28 01:55 __XE,5RUw6.myhost:2,S
>
> The first one is correct. The second one does not follow djb's rules
> for naming the file. If procmail wrote it, your version of procmail is
> broken.
I disagree. To quote from the webpage: "A unique name can be anything
that doesn't contain a colon (or slash) and doesn't start with a
dot.".
On that basis, the procmail filename is fine. Sure the webpage goes on
to *suggest* one method for generating unique names, but there is no
suggestion that that is the only way.
One could argue that procmail is being smart by ensuring that the
unique namespace it uses can only possibly collide with itself.
> > How are these random names generated?
Anyway the MDA wants. The primary requirement is that it be
unique. You should not infer any meaning beyond uniqueness for
everything before the colon.
> > Is this name generation the property of MUA such as mutt also? I
> > thought it was the domain of MDAs.
Well, mutt lives within the rules of Maildir by only appending the
:info data to the filename rather than generating new filenames
(postponed messages notwithstanding).
Regards.
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. To quote from the webpage: "A unique name can be anything
> that doesn't contain a colon (or slash) and doesn't start with a
> dot.".
>
> On that basis, the procmail filename is fine. Sure the webpage goes on
> to *suggest* one method for generating unique names, but there is no
> suggestion that that is the only way.
>
> One could argue that procmail is being smart by ensuring that the
> unique namespace it uses can only possibly collide with itself.
On the other hand, if procmail followed djb's (suggested) rules for naming
convention, it's guaranteed not to collide with any process anywhere in the
known universe at any point in the lifetime of the universe(1). You could
therefore argue that choosing another naming convention is "being dumb".
Perhaps two simultaneous procmails could collide? I don't use it, so I don't
know.
Charles
(1) Yes, if you have two machines with the same hostname delivering to the
same Maildir at the same instant, and the pids and delivery count of the two
processes match, you'll get a collision. I'm assuming you won't have two
hosts with the same hostname delivering to the same Maildir.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:09:00AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I disagree. To quote from the webpage: "A unique name can be anything
> > that doesn't contain a colon (or slash) and doesn't start with a
> > dot.".
> >
> > On that basis, the procmail filename is fine. Sure the webpage goes on
> > to *suggest* one method for generating unique names, but there is no
> > suggestion that that is the only way.
> >
> > One could argue that procmail is being smart by ensuring that the
> > unique namespace it uses can only possibly collide with itself.
>
> On the other hand, if procmail followed djb's (suggested) rules for naming
> convention, it's guaranteed not to collide with any process anywhere in the
> known universe at any point in the lifetime of the universe(1). You could
Unless the same PID gets reused within one second... That may sound silly today,
but it's possible well within the lifetime of the universe - especially if Moore's Law
continues.
> therefore argue that choosing another naming convention is "being dumb".
> Perhaps two simultaneous procmails could collide? I don't use it, so I don't
> know.
Me neither, but my main point remains, procmail is not "wrong" in any
sense.
Regards.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 04:36:20PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote:
> > The first one is correct. The second one does not follow djb's rules
> > for naming the file. If procmail wrote it, your version of procmail is
> > broken.
All versions of procmail are broken, IMHO :)
> I disagree. To quote from the webpage: "A unique name can be anything
> that doesn't contain a colon (or slash) and doesn't start with a
> dot.".
>
> On that basis, the procmail filename is fine. Sure the webpage goes on
> to *suggest* one method for generating unique names, but there is no
> suggestion that that is the only way.
>
> One could argue that procmail is being smart by ensuring that the
> unique namespace it uses can only possibly collide with itself.
One could also argue that procmail is being dumb by defining an
'abnormal' namespace. Another package defining an 'abnormal' namespace
may use a completely different algorithm, that generates the same
string as procmail does at *another* moment. Voila, a clash.
Also note that procmail makes no effort *at all* to check if it's
replacing an already-delivered mail. If something clashes, tough luck.
Therefore, procmail can lose mail (and I have heard suggestions that
procmail's algorithm doesn't guarantee uniqueness, even, but I haven't
verified that).
> > > How are these random names generated?
>
> Anyway the MDA wants. The primary requirement is that it be
> unique. You should not infer any meaning beyond uniqueness for
> everything before the colon.
But uniqueness can only be guaranteed by consensus!
procmail's Maildir implementation is (even ignoring this uniqueness
problem) almost guaranteed to *lose* mail. It neglects to implement
several of the Maildir requirements.
To my knowledge (from extensive sourcecode reading) only qmail-local
and safecat 1.5 and up implement Maildir correct *and* acceptable.
(Len owes me beer for the diff between safecat 1.4 and 1.5 :)
Disclaimer: I have not looked at all maildir implementations yet. I
have looked at procmail's, and it is heavily inadequate.
Greetz, Peter.
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, if procmail followed djb's (suggested) rules for naming
> > convention, it's guaranteed not to collide with any process anywhere in
> > the known universe at any point in the lifetime of the universe(1). You
> > could
>
> Unless the same PID gets reused within one second... That may sound silly
> today, but it's possible well within the lifetime of the universe -
> especially if Moore's Law continues.
By the time we have to worry about wrapping 16-bit PIDs in one second,
we'll be using 32-bit PIDs. No worries.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The first one is correct. The second one does not follow djb's rules
> > > for naming the file. If procmail wrote it, your version of procmail is
> > > broken.
>
> All versions of procmail are broken, IMHO :)
Agreed.
> To my knowledge (from extensive sourcecode reading) only qmail-local
> and safecat 1.5 and up implement Maildir correct *and* acceptable.
> (Len owes me beer for the diff between safecat 1.4 and 1.5 :)
getmail follows Dan's rules to the letter, and implements Maildir delivery
correctly as well.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:07:23PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
[snip]
> > To my knowledge (from extensive sourcecode reading) only qmail-local
> > and safecat 1.5 and up implement Maildir correct *and* acceptable.
> > (Len owes me beer for the diff between safecat 1.4 and 1.5 :)
>
> getmail follows Dan's rules to the letter, and implements Maildir delivery
> correctly as well.
Cool. I'm building a webpage about correct Maildir-implementations. I
audited qmail-local and safecat for it, found bugs in safecat, got
distracted, and am busy now.
I will continue work on this page some day, and be sure to include
getmail :)
Greetz, Peter.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:04:13PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> By the time we have to worry about wrapping 16-bit PIDs in one second,
> we'll be using 32-bit PIDs. No worries.
Um, too late. I believe Dave Miller's group was wrapping the PID
counter in under a second on a Sparc a couple of years ago already.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:04:13PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > By the time we have to worry about wrapping 16-bit PIDs in one second,
> > we'll be using 32-bit PIDs. No worries.
>
> Um, too late. I believe Dave Miller's group was wrapping the PID
> counter in under a second on a Sparc a couple of years ago already.
But they were doing fork(); exit() (or the equivalent of) if I remember
correctly. With real processes, especially doing Maildir deliveries (with the
accompanying I/O delays), I'm not particularly worried. Sure, an attacker
could spawn a lot of short-lived processes in an attempt to cause a
collision in mail delivery, but they'd need local access to the box to even
have a shot at it.
Besides, getmail uses's djb's pid_deliverycount for the middle member of
the filename, since it does multiple deliveries from the same process.
The attacker can't cause a collision here even that easily.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 04:24:48PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> accompanying I/O delays), I'm not particularly worried. Sure, an attacker
> could spawn a lot of short-lived processes in an attempt to cause a
> collision in mail delivery, but they'd need local access to the box to even
> have a shot at it.
Really? What if I connect to your SMTP port - does that cause a fork
on your system?
Regards.
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sure, an attacker could spawn a lot of short-lived processes in an attempt
> > to cause a collision in mail delivery, but they'd need local access to the
> > box to even have a shot at it.
>
> Really? What if I connect to your SMTP port - does that cause a fork on your
> system?
[as this topic slowly drifts from almost-on-topic to not-even-close...]
Yes. But even with all the network bandwidth in the world, with syn cookies,
you're not going to be able to create the four billion connections per
second that would be required to even have a shot at it.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On a UNIX box with BSDi 4.0, Apache, QMail and FP (though FP is not involved
in this issue) I have the following problem:
My customer needs to have email forwarded to her in Germany as well as to
her farm manager here in the states. I have been researching all I could
find on the subject and have gotten close, but not there yet. In the man
pages I found the following:
forward(1)
DESCRIPTION
forward forwards each new mail message to the specified
list of addresses.
dot-qmail.0
(3) A forward line begins with an ampersand:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Although it clearly states that it can be done, there is no mention of how
to set up the second forwarding address. I think what I have below is the
proper procedure for _one_ forwarding address.
echo "blackvengeance.com:alias-blackvengeance"
>>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
echo "&forwardaddress" >~alias/.qmail-blackvengeance-info
echo "blackvengeance.com" >>/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts'
My questiion is: do I add the second, comma separated, in that last echo
line as: 'echo
"&forwardaddress",'&secondforward">~alias/.qmail-blackvengeance-info' or do
I do a second / separate echo line as: 'echo
"&secondaddress">~alias/.qmail-blackvengeance-info' below the first?
Thanks in advance for your help.
V
Virginia Chism <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My customer needs to have email forwarded to her in Germany as well as to
> her farm manager here in the states. I have been researching all I could
> find on the subject and have gotten close, but not there yet.
> dot-qmail.0
> (3) A forward line begins with an ampersand:
>
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Although it clearly states that it can be done, there is no mention of how
> to set up the second forwarding address.
Sure there is, in `man dot-qmail`, which says you can have multiple
lines. Create a .qmail file which has the following contents:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
./Maildir/
and each message received will be forwarded to both addresses, _and_
placed in ./Maildir/ as well.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This works here, but there are many ways to skin a cat.
Login to the system (root)
Go to the home directory
# cd /uhome/johnqdoe
# sudo -u johnqdoe vi .qmail
add the following lines to the .qmail file to forward his mail
## Forward mail offsite
|forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
## but still deliver locally
/uhome/johnqdoe/Mailbox
When Johnqdoe wants the mail to stop being forwarded to hotmail, just delete
the .qmail file.
-----Original Message-----
From: Virginia Chism [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:42 AM
To: Qmail@List. Cr. Yp. To
Subject: need to forward to 2 addresses
On a UNIX box with BSDi 4.0, Apache, QMail and FP (though FP is not involved
in this issue) I have the following problem:
My customer needs to have email forwarded to her in Germany as well as to
her farm manager here in the states. I have been researching all I could
find on the subject and have gotten close, but not there yet. In the man
pages I found the following:
forward(1)
DESCRIPTION
forward forwards each new mail message to the specified
list of addresses.
dot-qmail.0
(3) A forward line begins with an ampersand:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Although it clearly states that it can be done, there is no mention of how
to set up the second forwarding address. I think what I have below is the
proper procedure for _one_ forwarding address.
echo "blackvengeance.com:alias-blackvengeance"
>>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
echo "&forwardaddress" >~alias/.qmail-blackvengeance-info
echo "blackvengeance.com" >>/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts'
My questiion is: do I add the second, comma separated, in that last echo
line as: 'echo
"&forwardaddress",'&secondforward">~alias/.qmail-blackvengeance-info' or do
I do a second / separate echo line as: 'echo
"&secondaddress">~alias/.qmail-blackvengeance-info' below the first?
Thanks in advance for your help.
V
I added the addresses with a comma between. It didn't work, so I went in
and edited the alias file to put each address on a separate line and
everything seems to have gone through just fine.
Thanks to all who answered for your help again.
Well, here's the bounce msg. Only the sender's name was changed. The
receipient, jmorgan, has a mailbox which works ALMOST all the time ;-) To
my novice eyes, the problem is on my isp's server.
thanks,
jean
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/26/2001 01:41:18 PM
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
>
> Subject: failure notice
>
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at cnmnetwork.com.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
>
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: (qmail 10182 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 13:41:17 -0800
> Received: from showboat.teradyne.com (198.51.251.10)
> by s0-c2.cnmnetwork.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 13:41:17 -0800
> Received: from chorus.teradyne.com (chorus.teradyne.com [131.101.1.195])
> by showboat.teradyne.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA25575
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:41:16 -0500 (EST)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: from jaypeak.corp.teradyne.com (jaypeak.corp.teradyne.com
> [131.101.17.23]) by chorus.teradyne.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.7.1) with ESMTP id
> QAA05760 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:41:16 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Vacation schedule
> To: JMorgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:41:11 -0800
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on JayPeak/Teradyne(Release 5.0.4a |July
> 24, 2000) at
> 03/26/2001 04:39:29 PM
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, here's the bounce msg. Only the sender's name was changed.
The
> receipient, jmorgan, has a mailbox which works ALMOST all the time
;-) To
> my novice eyes, the problem is on my isp's server.
>
[stuff deleted]
What do your mail log files indicate?
* jean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010328 18:43]:
> Well, here's the bounce msg. Only the sender's name was changed. The
> receipient, jmorgan, has a mailbox which works ALMOST all the time ;-) To
> my novice eyes, the problem is on my isp's server.
> thanks,
> jean
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Do you use Bruce G's qmail+patches rpm and vpopmail?
If so, a script in /etc/cron.hourly/ may be the answer... remove it (or
rather, move it to a safe place) and recreate the domain.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:20:50AM -0800, David Benfell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 10:22:20AM -0500, Peter Cavender wrote:
> > I want to run the openssh daemon under supervise...should my "run" script be:
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > exec /usr/local/sbin/sshd -D
>
> #!/bin/sh
> exec fghack /usr/local/sbin/sshd <&-
>
> I don't know what -D does.
-D causes sshd to not background itself, without outputting debug
information.
If anybody (else) is interested, I have RPMs of OpenSSH running under
svscan and tcpserver at:
http://em.ca/~bruceg/rpms/openssh/
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
Dear
I just installed new linux server and also qmail on
it. I gone as per the howtos given. I am using Maibox
format in qmail to distribute mails locally. in this I
can receive BCC mail locally, but I am not able to
receive mail in BCC from any externel address such as
hotmail or yahoo.
I am using fetchmail to fetch mail from our webserver
and distribute locally. in this I am not configured
fetchmail to use any mda from distribution.
If any one can help in this regards, i will be very
thankful for him
Pradeep Tapase
Netadmin
MET-IIT
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
* Pradeep Tapase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010328 19:41]:
> I just installed new linux server and also qmail on
> it. I gone as per the howtos given. I am using Maibox
> format in qmail to distribute mails locally. in this I
> can receive BCC mail locally, but I am not able to
> receive mail in BCC from any externel address such as
> hotmail or yahoo.
>
> I am using fetchmail to fetch mail from our webserver
> and distribute locally. in this I am not configured
> fetchmail to use any mda from distribution.
>
> If any one can help in this regards, i will be very
> thankful for him
This sounds very much like a fetchmail problem, or rather like a design
problem in your setup. qmail is never given the Bcc addresses, as
fetchmail can't get them from the messages. If the web server were running
qmail you'd be fine as you could parse the delivered-to lines...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Pradeep Tapase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just installed new linux server and also qmail on it. I gone as per the
> howtos given. I am using Maibox format in qmail to distribute mails locally.
> in this I can receive BCC mail locally, but I am not able to receive mail in
> BCC from any externel address such as hotmail or yahoo.
>
> I am using fetchmail to fetch mail from our webserver and distribute
> locally. in this I am not configured fetchmail to use any mda from
> distribution.
bcc'd mail does not typically contain the recipient address in it (qmail
servers are an exception; they record a variant of it in the Delivered-To:
header). Therefore fetchmail can't find the proper address to send the
mail to. Probably it's using something stupid, like <foo@bar>, and qmail
is rejecting it. Either configure fetchmail to default to a particular
address, or switch to getmail. You can find getmail at the link in my .sig.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:41:08AM -0800, Pradeep Tapase wrote:
> I am using fetchmail to fetch mail from our webserver
> and distribute locally.
Either configure fetchmail* to look at the Delivered-To field or use getmail.
*poll pop3.bsws.de proto pop3 envelope Delivered-To: [other options]
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
I'm trying to remove a bunch of e-mail from my
outgoing queue, which seems to be stored in
/var/qmail/queue/remote. Can I just delete the
directories containing these mails, or will that screw
up the program? Would it be better to just delete the
files themselves?
Alex Le Fevre
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
Alex Le Fevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to remove a bunch of e-mail from my outgoing queue, which seems
> to be stored in /var/qmail/queue/remote. Can I just delete the directories
> containing these mails, or will that screw up the program? Would it be
> better to just delete the files themselves?
There's some information and programs for manually twiddling the queue
referenced at www.qmail.org. Removing subdirectories of queue/remote will
definitely corrupt your queue. Even just removing files under there will
corrupt your queue; you need to worry about other parts of the queue
structure as well.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had a similar problem and found the following instructions somewhere.
This worked OK and rebuilt the queue directory structure.
Steve
1. # Stop qmail
2. # rm -rf /var/qmail/queue
3. # cd qmail-sources
4. # make setup check
5. # Start qmail
At 20:01 28/03/2001, you wrote:
>Alex Le Fevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm trying to remove a bunch of e-mail from my outgoing queue, which seems
> > to be stored in /var/qmail/queue/remote. Can I just delete the directories
> > containing these mails, or will that screw up the program? Would it be
> > better to just delete the files themselves?
>
>There's some information and programs for manually twiddling the queue
>referenced at www.qmail.org. Removing subdirectories of queue/remote will
>definitely corrupt your queue. Even just removing files under there will
>corrupt your queue; you need to worry about other parts of the queue
>structure as well.
>
>Charles
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
>Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been looking through the FAQ, the docs and the archives, but I am
still confused.
I am setting up a new qmail server which will act as a relay for our
internal servers to the outside world, as well as receiving email for the
various domains we own.
So far I have been able to get qmail to accept, and if necessary forward,
email for the various domains we receive mail for. My problem now is that
mail going out through the qmail server must appear as though it is from
@external-domain.com, regardless of which internal machine sent the mail.
Right now, if I have server1.internal_lan.com, server2.internal_lan.com,
and server3.internal_lan.com (all still running sendmail at this point),
and I tell them to use my qmail server as their relay, messages go out as
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I need them to be
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, otherwise our clients will not be able to
respond (and in some cases may even reject the message as spam).
Currently I have the domains I will accept mail for in rcpthosts, and
locals. I have set defaultdomain, me and defaulthost to
"external-domain.com".
What am I missing to make *outgoing* emails conform to
@external-domain.com? I've seen mention of mess822, but nothing that seems
to pertain to my situation.
Should I be changing the sendmail.cf files instead? I'm not really
concerned if the real server name appears in the headers somewhere, but the
From: and (if used) Reply-To: should show @external-domain.com.
I know several of you think this is old hat, but it's confusing to me. Your
assistance is appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Dion Vansevenant ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Internetwork Administrator
MRO Software, Inc.
P: 519-642-6046
F: 519-433-1247
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been looking through the FAQ, the docs and the archives, but I am
> still confused.
[...]
> My problem now is that mail going out through the qmail server must appear
> as though it is from @external-domain.com, regardless of which internal
> machine sent the mail.
Rewriting headers to hide hosts is a broken design. It's not trivial to
do in qmail. If you just want to hide the hostnames, you can use settings
like:
192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",TCPREMOTEHOST=""
in your smtp.cdb to prevent your internal hosts' names from showing up in
Received: headers, and allow them to relay through your qmail server.
> Should I be changing the sendmail.cf files instead?
You're confused. sendmail.cf is a sendmail configuration file. This is
qmail.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:59:24PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> Right now, if I have server1.internal_lan.com,
> server2.internal_lan.com, and server3.internal_lan.com (all
> still running sendmail at this point), and I tell them to
> use my qmail server as their relay, messages go out as
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I need them to be
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, otherwise our clients will not be able to
> respond (and in some cases may even reject the message as spam).
[snip]
That kind of data is added by qmail-inject which is not activated by
relay. Tell the internal servers to do the masquerade.
Jörgen
Can somebody, please, point me to where the qmail archives are and hot to
look at them?
Kirti
Kirti S. Bajwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can somebody, please, point me to where the qmail archives are and hot to
> look at them?
There's a pointer at www.qmail.org, which you should have checked before
asking the question here.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirti S. Bajwa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:07 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: archives
Can somebody, please, point me to where the qmail archives are and hot to
look at them?
Kirti
I'm sure this is handled differently by different people, but here's the
situation:
I want to send a message to someone, and add two CC's as well, but with
special notes not visible to the CC'd people. Right now, I send the
message to that person, then re-send it to the other people, or send the
original message to everyone with the special notes in a seperate message.
Has anyone seen an RFC or had any ideas for the inclusion of recipient
specific subjects, etc? Perhaps based on MIME? This would be best done
at the MUA or MTA level I would imagine.
Michael T. Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I want to send a message to someone, and add two CC's as well, but with
> special notes not visible to the CC'd people.
Can't be done. If the message contents are different, it's two different
messages, not one message with two recipients.
> Right now, I send the message to that person, then re-send it to the other
> people, or send the original message to everyone with the special notes in a
> seperate message.
That's the only way.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I really should get some sleep... Please accept my apologies.... I made a
> mistake in my previous message to you.
No problem thanks a lot !
> --------------------------------------------
> exec tcpserver -R -H -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u qmaild -g nobody 0 smtp \
^^
#######from tcpserver page########
tcpserver waits for connections from TCP clients. For each connection, it
runs prog, with descriptor 0 reading from the network and descriptor 1
writing to the network. It also sets up several environment variables.
############end##################
I were asking what that zero meant ? The same I dont figured when I would be
"writing" to the network.
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | \
> ^^^^^
> /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 10 &
> --------------------------------------------
I understand it you "pipes" the stdout and error to the logger. Great !
But see as is configured in "Life with qmail"
##########################################
Create the /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run file:
#!/bin/sh
QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild`
NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild`
MAXSMTPD=`cat /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \
-u "$QMAILDUID" -g "$NOFILESGID" 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
2>&1
####****** here the stdout and error are redirected to ???? I dont
understand !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Note: concurrencyincoming isn't a standard qmail control file. It's a
feature of the above script.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Create the concurrencyincoming control file:
echo 20 > /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming
chmod 644 /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming
Create the /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log/run file:
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t
/var/log/qmail/smtpd
#######*******I dont undertand how to "multilog" catch the output and error
from qmail-smptd ???
#############################################################
end of "Life with qmail"
THX. a lot
Hi All,
With the help of inter7.com, I now have qmailadmin and vpopmail upgraded to
the latest versions. I decided to have a go at it with upgrading sqwebmail
to version
1.2.5 on my own.
I found the following ./configure was used originally when sqwebmail was first
installed:
# ./configure
--enable-webpass=no
--without-authldap
--without-authpam
--without-authuserdb
--with-db=gdbm
--enable-cgibindir='/home/httpd/cgi-bin'
--with-userdb=/etc/userdb
--with-makedatprog='${exec_prefix}/libexec/sqwebmail/makedatprog'
--with-formdata
--without-authlib-man
--sysconfdir=${datadir}/sqwebmail
now, if I use the same ./configure for version 1.2.5, it should work the
same way, no?
Any help would be appreciated (trying to learn on my own)
-Bill
Hi all,
I'm having a bit of a problem. I am trying to deliver mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I keep getting the message:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Now there are other domain names i.e xyz-at-domain.co.uk that work perfectly
well. The domain name is in the rcpthosts file as well as the virtualdomains
file in the format :- 'domain-name.com:domain-name.com__' . I have checked
and double checked the spelling in each file.
This domain name worked fine under sendmail
The mail addresses for domain-name.com reside in /etc/aliases which are
reached via 'fastforward' in /var/qmail/alias/qmail-default
domain-name.com__-advice: name1
domain-name.com__-sales: name1
domain-name.com__-export: name1
domain-name.com__-support: name1
domain-name.com__-admin: name1
name1 is a local user (who is in the database).
All other virtual domains are configured the same as above and they work
fine.
I have also checked the file permissions/owner/group on the user's
homedir/Maildir/new/cur/tmp and all are correct.
This problem is only affecting one virtual domain.
We are also using a postgres database instead of the /etc/passwd file. We do
not check for virtualdomains when users log on.
Is there any quirk in qmail that handles domains with '-' any differently to
other domain names?
Thanks
Dean Browett
Hi,
My name is John and I'm having problems getting Qmail to work properly.
I have currently have Qmail configured to use LDAP to authenticate and when
I run local Qmail commands such as (echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
/apps/qmail/bin/qmail-inject) Qmail works fine, but when I try to test
receiving email through smtp it fails. I not having any luck getting pop3
to work as well, any hints or suggestions would be greatly appreciated..
Does Qmail require that DNS be working or can you use the local host files?
Sorry for the lame questions, but I've talked my company into using Qmail
and I'm having problems getting it to work.
Please any help would be greatly appreciated..
Thanks in advance!!! :^)
John
John Cope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My name is John and I'm having problems getting Qmail to work properly.
All: "Hi, John!"
> I have currently have Qmail configured to use LDAP to authenticate and when
> I run local Qmail commands such as (echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> /apps/qmail/bin/qmail-inject) Qmail works fine, but when I try to test
> receiving email through smtp it fails. I not having any luck getting pop3
> to work as well, any hints or suggestions would be greatly appreciated..
>
> Does Qmail require that DNS be working or can you use the local host files?
qmail never uses host files. It's in the docs. You need working DNS,
unless you disable DNS lookups for qmail-smtpd and use smtproutes for all
outgoing mail.
For qmail-ldap problems, there is a separate qmail-ldap list.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
qmail requires a working dns.
if you want more information post logs.
try reading www.lifewithqmail.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cope" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: Problems getting qmail to work properly....
> Hi,
>
> My name is John and I'm having problems getting Qmail to work properly.
>
> I have currently have Qmail configured to use LDAP to authenticate and
when
> I run local Qmail commands such as (echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> /apps/qmail/bin/qmail-inject) Qmail works fine, but when I try to test
> receiving email through smtp it fails. I not having any luck getting pop3
> to work as well, any hints or suggestions would be greatly appreciated..
>
> Does Qmail require that DNS be working or can you use the local host
files?
>
> Sorry for the lame questions, but I've talked my company into using Qmail
> and I'm having problems getting it to work.
>
> Please any help would be greatly appreciated..
>
> Thanks in advance!!! :^)
>
> John
>
|
Hi All,
i am desperatly searching for a draft -
project off instalation procedures for building a frontend off qmail
machines , the objectives are to check/try to protect from possible
spammers " spamcontol patch "and smtproute a domain to inside the inside
machines .
Ways to easely rebuild a machine "tar??",
sync off configurations "rsyncd ?", and web visualization of the status "mrtg +
what more?" .
what i need is a real tested solution for
comparisions
i only have a couple off machines
in the midle off a Bill world enviroment , so i am very streessed ,
and want to
show the power off qmail.
any help will be apreciated
thanks in advance
./hantunes
sorry the english
|
I remember reading that the fastest way to send one email to a large number
of people is through bcc. This was helpful to me because I'm not able to use
a mailing list since the addresses I send to will be pulled dynamically from
a database which is always changing. But somehow, populating the bcc field
with a million names seems like it might not be the best idea to me. I
understand qmail deletes this field before sending the message out but I'm
more concerned with whether or not it will be making efficient use of the
queue. Is the queue even used for one message sent to numerous people or is
it only used for separate messages? If there's a better method than bcc-ing
everyone, I'm very open to hearing it. One suggestion I got but which I
can't get to work is:
cat list.txt | xargs qmail-inject -a <message.txt
where list.txt is a list of addresses. Is this faster than bcc anyway? Any
help much appreciated.
Brett.
Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember reading that the fastest way to send one email to a large number
> of people is through bcc.
It's faster than injecting a separate message for each recipient. As you
suspected, bcc'ing the recipients on one message means only one message
in the queue, with the consequent savings on queue disk bandwidth.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:47:25PM -0800, Brett wrote:
> I remember reading that the fastest way to send one email to a large number
> of people is through bcc. This was helpful to me because I'm not able to use
> a mailing list since the addresses I send to will be pulled dynamically from
> a database which is always changing. But somehow, populating the bcc field
> with a million names seems like it might not be the best idea to me. I
> understand qmail deletes this field before sending the message out but I'm
> more concerned with whether or not it will be making efficient use of the
> queue. Is the queue even used for one message sent to numerous people or is
> it only used for separate messages? If there's a better method than bcc-ing
> everyone, I'm very open to hearing it. One suggestion I got but which I
> can't get to work is:
> cat list.txt | xargs qmail-inject -a <message.txt
> where list.txt is a list of addresses. Is this faster than bcc anyway? Any
> help much appreciated.
Bcc is indeed efficient, because it only injects one message into the
queue.
The xargs method is quite efficient, but not as efficient as the Bcc
trick. Note too that the Bcc trick is only guaranteed to work reliably
when used with qmail-inject.
Greetz, Peter.
"Brett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I remember reading that the fastest way to send one email to a large number
>of people is through bcc. This was helpful to me because I'm not able to use
>a mailing list since the addresses I send to will be pulled dynamically from
>a database which is always changing. But somehow, populating the bcc field
>with a million names seems like it might not be the best idea to me. I
>understand qmail deletes this field before sending the message out but I'm
>more concerned with whether or not it will be making efficient use of the
>queue.
Yes, that's efficient.
>Is the queue even used for one message sent to numerous people or is
>it only used for separate messages?
All messages sent using qmail queued.
>If there's a better method than bcc-ing
>everyone, I'm very open to hearing it. One suggestion I got but which I
>can't get to work is:
>cat list.txt | xargs qmail-inject -a <message.txt
>where list.txt is a list of addresses. Is this faster than bcc
>anyway?
No. That creates one message per recipient--lots of disk I/O to do the
same thing as one message, many recipients.
-Dave
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:47:25PM -0800, Brett wrote:
> I remember reading that the fastest way to send one email to a large number
> of people is through bcc.
Well, the fact that it's Bcc: vs To: is not important wrt speed. The
reason for Bcc: over To: is to ensure that the recipient list isn't
visible to the recipients. That might have privacy implications and it
will certain have mail size implications with a million recipients!
> This was helpful to me because I'm not able to use
> a mailing list since the addresses I send to will be pulled dynamically from
> a database which is always changing. But somehow, populating the Bcc: field
> with a million names seems like it might not be the best idea to me. I
> understand qmail deletes this field before sending the message out but I'm
> more concerned with whether or not it will be making efficient use of the
> queue.
The performance gain comes from sending one mail with lots of
recipients. Those recipients traditionally are placed on Bcc: lines.
> Is the queue even used for one message sent to numerous people or is
> it only used for separate messages?
Both. The queue is *always* involved. However, one message with lots
of recipients creates much less work than lots of messages with one
recipient each - that's the key.
> If there's a better method than Bcc:-ing everyone, I'm very open to
> hearing it.
Not particularly. Some suggest usig qmail-queue directly (which
qmail-inject calls), but the interface is more difficult and the cost
saving is too small to measure for a large recipient list.
> One suggestion I got but which I
> can't get to work is:
> cat list.txt | xargs qmail-inject -a <message.txt
> where list.txt is a list of addresses. Is this faster than Bcc: anyway? Any
> help much appreciated.
In what way can't you get it to work?
I would not use the xargs approach as that makes the recipients
visible and it is also less efficient than this:
( sed 's/^/Bcc: /' <list.txt;cat message.txt ) | qmail-inject
Finally, make sure that message.txt has header lines, such as From:
and Subject: and make sure that there is an empty line between the
headers and the message text!
Regards.
Mark, you rule. This has been a tremendous help. Thanks a lot.
Brett.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Delany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 1:45 PM
To: Brett
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: faster than bcc
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:47:25PM -0800, Brett wrote:
> I remember reading that the fastest way to send one email to a large
number
> of people is through bcc.
Well, the fact that it's Bcc: vs To: is not important wrt speed. The
reason for Bcc: over To: is to ensure that the recipient list isn't
visible to the recipients. That might have privacy implications and it
will certain have mail size implications with a million recipients!
> This was helpful to me because I'm not able to use
> a mailing list since the addresses I send to will be pulled dynamically
from
> a database which is always changing. But somehow, populating the Bcc:
field
> with a million names seems like it might not be the best idea to me. I
> understand qmail deletes this field before sending the message out but I'm
> more concerned with whether or not it will be making efficient use of the
> queue.
The performance gain comes from sending one mail with lots of
recipients. Those recipients traditionally are placed on Bcc: lines.
> Is the queue even used for one message sent to numerous people or is
> it only used for separate messages?
Both. The queue is *always* involved. However, one message with lots
of recipients creates much less work than lots of messages with one
recipient each - that's the key.
> If there's a better method than Bcc:-ing everyone, I'm very open to
> hearing it.
Not particularly. Some suggest usig qmail-queue directly (which
qmail-inject calls), but the interface is more difficult and the cost
saving is too small to measure for a large recipient list.
> One suggestion I got but which I
> can't get to work is:
> cat list.txt | xargs qmail-inject -a <message.txt
> where list.txt is a list of addresses. Is this faster than Bcc: anyway?
Any
> help much appreciated.
In what way can't you get it to work?
I would not use the xargs approach as that makes the recipients
visible and it is also less efficient than this:
( sed 's/^/Bcc: /' <list.txt;cat message.txt ) | qmail-inject
Finally, make sure that message.txt has header lines, such as From:
and Subject: and make sure that there is an empty line between the
headers and the message text!
Regards.
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >cat list.txt | xargs qmail-inject -a <message.txt
> >where list.txt is a list of addresses. Is this faster than bcc
> >anyway?
> No. That creates one message per recipient--lots of disk I/O to do the
> same thing as one message, many recipients.
That should still do only one message, multiple recipients, shouldn't it?
Until, of course, the arg list becomes long enough for xargs to break it
down to 2 serial injections.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you everyone for your input. I know now that I'm on the right track
with bcc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 2:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: faster than bcc
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >cat list.txt | xargs qmail-inject -a <message.txt
> >where list.txt is a list of addresses. Is this faster than bcc
> >anyway?
> No. That creates one message per recipient--lots of disk I/O to do the
> same thing as one message, many recipients.
That should still do only one message, multiple recipients, shouldn't it?
Until, of course, the arg list becomes long enough for xargs to break it
down to 2 serial injections.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All-
I needed a way to require authenticated SMTP for certain client IP
addresses, so I wrote a patch to cause qmail-smtpd to require authentication
if the REQUIREAUTH environment variable is set. Since I run qmail-smtpd
from tcpserver, I use tcprules to set the REQUIREAUTH variable when
appropriate. If REQUIREAUTH is set, qmail-smtpd will not accept any MAIL
FROM commands before the client has authenticated.
The qmail-smtpd-requireauth patch goes on top of Krzysztof Dabrowski's
qmail-smtpd-auth patch, which enables authenticated SMTP in qmail-smtpd.
I am now releasing the qmail-smtpd-requireauth patch for public consumption,
flogging, trashing, etc. See
http://www.netable.com/~dburkes/qmail-smtpd-requireauth for details on
installation and usage.
Regards,
Danny Burkes
Danny,, here is an excerpt from you docs:
10.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
and allows me to relay when I dial up, but only if I authenticate
first, via the rule:
=.dialup.someisp.net:allow,RBLSMTPD="",REQUIREAUTH=""
What is the ADDED functionality of your patch? Just ot make it clear to
me.
1. if you do:
10.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
you will be able to realy with no problems from everythere
2. if you do:
=.dialup.someisp.net:allow
You will HAVE to authenticate, unless the receipient's domain is in your
rcpthosts file (which is 100% logical as you want to accept all mail for
your users from all sources).
So all the functionality that you say, your patch is providing ALREADY IS
in my patch :)
Kris
p.s. i recall you mailing me, right? sorry i did not answer because i
were sick lately and i was overwhelmed with the amount of mail....
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IIRC, HP OpenMail on Linux has been discontinued. Another option is to
> look at TradeServer from Bynari - http://www.bynari.com
The Horde project (http://www.horde.org/) is also trying to put
together an appointments/calendar system called Kronolith.
I'm not sure how far they are, though. (IMP, a web-based email client
and another part of the Horde project, works nicely.)
(HP OpenMail has been around a long time - so to say that they
realised it would be an Exchange killer is quite funny!)
James.
I have qmail running configured to use LDAP to authenticate. Courier-IMAP
server running doing IMAP and POP3 also using LDAP to authenticate. When I
try to send a email message it hangs up and never connects.. I not sure
where else to look for clues, I don't see anything in the logs, but maybe
I'm looking in the wrong place, any suggestions?
John Cope
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 04:41:39PM -0800, John Cope wrote:
> I have qmail running configured to use LDAP to authenticate. Courier-IMAP
> server running doing IMAP and POP3 also using LDAP to authenticate. When I
> try to send a email message it hangs up and never connects.
What is the "it" that never connects? Are you sending a message from a remote
client to your server by SMTP? Are you sending a message from your server to a
remote host? What does "hangs up" mean? You're going to need to provide a
detail or two.
Chris
PGP signature
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:41 PM
Subject: SMTP not working .....
> I have qmail running configured to use LDAP to authenticate. Courier-IMAP
> server running doing IMAP and POP3 also using LDAP to authenticate. When
I
> try to send a email message it hangs up and never connects.. I not sure
> where else to look for clues, I don't see anything in the logs, but maybe
> I'm looking in the wrong place, any suggestions?
>
>
> John Cope
John,
Could you please be a little more specific as to what you mean by "it hangs
up and never connects".
Do you mean your server? Or your mail client?
What do your logs say? Could you please post the relevant sections of your
logs that might have errors in them.
It's much better to post the relevant information regarding the problem,
that way the community can help you fix whats broken.
- Jack Thomas
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i want to make pop authenticate by ldap .what i need and what shall i do ?
thanks
all mails sent by the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] will have an automatic
cc copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? is this possible?
yes this is very easy to do. find the .qmail-xxxxx for the email address you
are trying to redirect and then simply add your second email address to it.
Once you open the file and look at you will see its very simple to do. i.e
.qmail-abuse file contents
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks
Jps
> all mails sent by the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] will have an
automatic
> cc copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? is this possible?
>
>
>
how is the code if i want to make email with message as the same with the
attachment I've send (the error12 file but not in the binary mode)
here is the original script of mine ...
can you help me ?
#!/bin/bash
perl /home/essy/public_html/perl/http -r www.ojolali.com > hasil12;
grep -i 200 /home/essy/public_html/perl/hasil12 > /usr/backup/error12;
if grep -i 200 /usr/backup/error12; then
{
(cat /usr/backup/error12 | uuencode error12 ; echo "ojolali oke") |
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject [EMAIL PROTECTED]
al
}
fi
for some unknown to me reason when i type
csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
just like INSTALL says
it gives me PATH on screen
and when it starts to run qmail-start
it "freezes", well not really freezes.. but nothing is happened
i even went to bin directory and run ./qmail-start itself
on my other box it shows status: local and etc..
so i'm running it through bash and it seems to work although i had to change
script a bit
does it matter? which shell? and/or why isn't it running like it supposte to
(like in INSTALL)?
Good morning everyone,
i'm trying to get the qmail-ldap patch since yesterday, but the place
where it used to be
"http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/qmail-ldap-1.03-20000701.patch.gz" doesn't
answer.
I'm in a hurry, so please, if anyone of you have a copy of it or knows
other URL where i could take it, i would appreciate your help.
Regards and thanks in advance.
Elena Escolano Torner.
Systems Architecture Consultant.
Tissat.
Elena Escolano Torner wrote:
>
> Good morning everyone,
> i'm trying to get the qmail-ldap patch since yesterday, but the place
> where it used to be
> "http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/qmail-ldap-1.03-20000701.patch.gz" doesn't
> answer.
> I'm in a hurry, so please, if anyone of you have a copy of it or knows
> other URL where i could take it, i would appreciate your help.
> Regards and thanks in advance.
Yes, we have restructured our network and I didn't had time to
reconnect www.nrg4u.com before I felt asleep...
Will be online in a few hours.
--
Andre
|
Dear all,
I am using qmail 1.03 on Redhat 6.2 box.
I have just shifted from Mailbox format to Maildir
format. And i am using qpopper-qmail-2.53-1-PAM.i386.rpm for pop
daemon.
If i am doing telnet on localhost at port 110 ,
then it showing that pop daemon is running, And if i am providing username and
password over there just to check the mail, but its saying 0 message , while i
am having mails in my Maildir/new folders.
How can i fetch mails now using Maildir format
?
Regards
Lokesh
|
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:25:22PM +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am using qmail 1.03 on Redhat 6.2 box.
> I have just shifted from Mailbox format to Maildir format. And i am using
>qpopper-qmail-2.53-1-PAM.i386.rpm for pop daemon.
>
I do not know that rpm.
> If i am doing telnet on localhost at port 110 , then it showing that pop daemon is
>running, And if i am providing username and password over there just to check the
>mail, but its saying 0 message , while i am having mails in my Maildir/new folders.
>
> How can i fetch mails now using Maildir format ?
>
How about setting up qmail-pop3d (comes with qmail).
Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
Hi everybody.
Is there anyway to limit outbound connections with control/concurrentremote
but not for all domains?
I want to limit outbound connections for all domains but one (it's an
internal domain and the bandwidth is not limited, so there is no reason to
limit this domain and I want immediate delivery too).
Thanks in advance.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Manager
newKnow
Navaluenga 2, Las Rozas, Madrid, Spain
+34 91 6399000
This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any wrong transmission.
If you have received this message in error, please immediately destroy it
and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or
copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of Newknow shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Dear
I just newly installed Qmail on one server. But in this I was not able to get
BCC mails from any externel account such as yahoo or hotmail, but i can receive
localy. In qmail i configured it for Mailbox format. If any one can help in
this regards. if any one suggest me to configure procmail to receive BCC mail.
To fetchmail from our web server we uses fetchmail.
In fetchmail I doesn't uses any mda to transfer mail. fetchmail deliver mail to
SMTP port.
If any can suggest me changes in my configuration or to change some script also
I will be thankful for him
Pradeep
NetAdmin
MET-IIT
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:03:08PM +0600, Pradeep Tapase wrote:
> Dear
>
> I just newly installed Qmail on one server. But in this I was not able to get
> BCC mails from any externel account such as yahoo or hotmail, but i can receive
> localy. In qmail i configured it for Mailbox format. If any one can help in
> this regards. if any one suggest me to configure procmail to receive BCC mail.
> To fetchmail from our web server we uses fetchmail.
>
> In fetchmail I doesn't uses any mda to transfer mail. fetchmail deliver mail to
> SMTP port.
>
If You use fetchmail to pop mail from yahoo or hotmail and feed it to
localhost:25, this is an fetchmail issue. fetchmail must parse additional
header information added by hotmail's or yahoo's MTA.
Please ask Yout question in a fetchmail support forum.
Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
Hi!
I wonder if anyone has written a real "bouncesaying" (qmails bouncesaying
just exits with an exit code that makes qmail-local do the actual
bouncing.
I want to pipe a message to bouncesaying from mutt, like this:
| boucesaying "No subject specified"
and it should use the Return-Path to address it and use <> as the
sender...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
