qmail Digest 30 Jul 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1078
Topics (messages 45799 through 45826):
bug in qmail-autoresponder version 0.92 ?
45799 by: Olivier M.
45823 by: Bruce Guenter
45826 by: Olivier M.
>From where to get tcpserver
45800 by: tejal.interoffice.worldgatein.net
45801 by: Robin S. Socha
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
45802 by: Greg Cope
45803 by: markd.bushwire.net
45804 by: Greg Cope
45805 by: markd.bushwire.net
45821 by: Bruce Guenter
45822 by: Bruce Guenter
POP delete mail on 2 places...
45806 by: Magnus Löfqvist
45809 by: Uwe Ohse
Open letter
45807 by: Patrick Lambert
45812 by: markd.bushwire.net
45813 by: Blackey
45816 by: Adam McKenna
45817 by: markd.bushwire.net
urgent help required ! tcpserver & tcprules
45808 by: reach_prashant.zeenext.com
45811 by: Alexander Jernejcic
Re: dot-qmail deliver help
45810 by: Uwe Ohse
invalid characters in a email address?
45814 by: Bill Parker
45815 by: Ronny Haryanto
Re: qmail-1.03 on Solaris is broken
45818 by: Toens Bueker
Forwarding local account messages to POP mailbox.
45819 by: Paul Broadwith
45820 by: Jonathan McDowell
Blocking Spam, badmailfrom not working
45824 by: Hubbard, David
45825 by: Chris, the Young One
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently trying qmail-autoresponder (http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/) :
Docs says:
>- Limits rate of automatic responses (defaults to a maximum of one
> message every hour).
well, I always get _two_ messages, before the
Ignoring_message://usr/local/bin/qmail-autoresponder:_SENDER_has_sent_too_many_messages/did_0+0+2/
appears in logs...
(with:
|/usr/local/bin/qmail-autoresponder -n 1 -t 43200
|/home/paradises.ch/autorespond/msg/oli2 /home/paradises.ch/autorespond/log/oli2
|/usr/local/bin/qmail-autoresponder -t 43200 /home/paradises.ch/autorespond/msg/oli2
|/home/paradises.ch/autorespond/log/oli2
)
Just looked in the source:
/* If the user's count is already over the max,
* don't record any more. */
if(++count > max)
return 0;
shouldn't it be :
/* If the user's count is already over the max,
* don't record any more. */
if(++count >= max)
return 0;
? (it works this way on my system... :)
Regards,
Olivier
PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation
feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add
it to qmail-autorespond ? Some sample source with this feature
is available under :
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/vacation/?cvsroot=vacation
PPS: if there is a From: or a Reply-To: field, should the autoresponder
respond to this address ?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
PGP signature
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
> Currently trying qmail-autoresponder (http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/) :
Great!
> Docs says:
> >- Limits rate of automatic responses (defaults to a maximum of one
> > message every hour).
>
> well, I always get _two_ messages,
>
> shouldn't it be :
>
> /* If the user's count is already over the max,
> * don't record any more. */
> if(++count >= max)
> return 0;
You are right. The logic worked before the rewrite for 0.92, and I
guess I missed that one. The tests also failed to catch this. I'll
make sure they work this time.
> PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation
> feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add
> it to qmail-autorespond ?
Reluctantly, yes. Would something like "%S" work for you? That would
greatly simplify the parsing logic.
> PPS: if there is a From: or a Reply-To: field, should the autoresponder
> respond to this address ?
I think not. Responding to the envelope sender is pretty much the only
safe thing to do, and it neatly avoids all the trouble one would get
into to properly parse an address field.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
'morning!
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:47:05PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
> > Currently trying qmail-autoresponder (http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/) :
> Great!
> > PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation
> > feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add
> > it to qmail-autorespond ?
> Reluctantly, yes. Would something like "%S" work for you? That would
> greatly simplify the parsing logic.
Then '%SUBJECT' ? (it should be understable by "normal users", via webinterface).
Otherwise would '%S' also be ok, I can also do some parsing/search+replace
in php if necessary.
> > PPS: if there is a From: or a Reply-To: field, should the autoresponder
> > respond to this address ?
> I think not. Responding to the envelope sender is pretty much the only
> safe thing to do, and it neatly avoids all the trouble one would get
> into to properly parse an address field.
Right, these fields are not se easy to parse... Ok, I think it's already
pretty nice this way!
Now just have to find if and how it works with the
current php-vmailmgr-interface. I still need the perl suidwrapper
to be able to write the autoresponder file, but there is probably
another way to do it... Will then release a new omail-admin
version ( http://omail.omnis.ch/ ).
Regards,
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
PGP signature
Dear friends and gurus,
Could anybody tell me that from where to get the tar or rpms for
tcpserver for qmail,
because i need to run qmail with tcpserver not with inetd.
i m working on RH 6.2.
thanx in advance
Tejal Shah
* tejal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could anybody tell me that from where to get the tar or rpms for
> tcpserver for qmail, because i need to run qmail with tcpserver not
> with inetd. i m working on RH 6.2.
http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html
But if you're not familiar with installing sources, I'd suggest trying
the following:
robin@radioactive ~> rpmfind --apropos tcpserver
Loading catalog to /home/robin/.rpmfinddir/fullIndex.rdf.gz
Searching the RPM catalog for tcpserver ...
1: ftp://rpmfind.net/linux/MandrakeCooker/contrib/RPMS/ucspi-tcp-0.88-3mdk.i586.rpm
ucspi-tcp : tcpserver and tcpclient for building TCP client-server apps
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
Bruce Guenter wrote:
>
>
> As promised, I've posted the results of the benchmark testing at
> http://em.ca/~bruceg/bench-qmail-remote/
>
> The receiving server is my PC, which has a DSL connection running at
> about 1.5Mb downlink bandwidth (the part that was actually used) running
> qmail, of course. The "-cable-" results were sent from a cable modem
> which has approximately 384Kb uplink bandwidth. the "-2Mb-" results
> were sent from a partial DS3 with 2Mb of bandwidth. The receiver had
> its concurrency set to 128.
>
> 20 runs were done of each test, 10 with one connection with multiple
> recipients, and 10 with multiple connections with one recipient. The
> min and max columns give the fastest and shortest run times
> respectively; mean is (T1*T2*T3...*T10)**(1/10); avg is
> (T1+T2+T3+...+T10)/10. The mean is less biased by unrepresentative
> results, and so is a better measure of the common case.
>
> Conclusions are somewhat tricky. Using mutiple RCPTs tends to be more
> predictable (less of a spread between min and max), but using multiple
> connections has the best optimistic behaviour (min is lower than
> multi-RCPT's min). With small messages (4KB and less), multi-connection
> is always a win. On our mail proxy, the median message size is 3KB,
> just for comparison. On the well-connected sender, using multi-RCPTs
> was never a significant win, which proves DJB's hypothesis about its use
> for well-connected hosts. Once bandwidth limits become an issue (poorly
> connected server, large messages), multi-RCPTs win because the latency
> involved in sending one more RCPT becomes less than the additional time
> required to send another concurrent copy.
>
> This says nothing about bandwidth efficiency, only time efficiency.
> Obviously, using multi-RCPTs is always a bandwidth win (unless your
> recipient is larger than your message, highly unlikely).
>
> Feedback would be appreciated. Oh, and please don't consider the test
> addresses I used in the scripts as wide open for mailbombing.
Thanks for that - very interesting.
Here goes on some feed back ...
Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well
connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using
multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down....
One of my clients is into sending "customized - personal" messages to
their members - and we've been looking at an mta solution.
We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places,
but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the
arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not
support.
My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
The reason being is that we use two hosts - one is a SuSe based Linux
box (256 meg RAM - 1 9 GIG scsi, and a pentium 600) the a twin
ultrasparc 1 gig ram - 1 9 gig scsi that is also our main web server /
mysql server.
The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one
of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually
an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at
anything above 512 mbits/sec.
Thanks again.
Greg Cope
still awaiting ADSL to be launched in the UK!
> --
> Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
> Here goes on some feed back ...
>
> Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well
> connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using
> multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down....
>
> One of my clients is into sending "customized - personal" messages to
> their members - and we've been looking at an mta solution.
>
> We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places,
> but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the
> arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not
> support.
But a customized email can never use multiple recipients. So that can't
be an issue in your evaluation.
> My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
> The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one
> of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually
> an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at
> anything above 512 mbits/sec.
I would say that both of these are well connected. But well connected
in this context probable means few packet losses and few timeouts
at the various layers including at the application layer (DNS, SMTP).
Regards.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Here goes on some feed back ...
> >
> > Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well
> > connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using
> > multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down....
> >
> > One of my clients is into sending "customized - personal" messages to
> > their members - and we've been looking at an mta solution.
> >
> > We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places,
> > but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the
> > arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not
> > support.
>
> But a customized email can never use multiple recipients. So that can't
> be an issue in your evaluation.
Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the
messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we
were considereding bining the customised part.
>
> > My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
>
> > The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one
> > of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually
> > an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at
> > anything above 512 mbits/sec.
>
> I would say that both of these are well connected. But well connected
> in this context probable means few packet losses and few timeouts
> at the various layers including at the application layer (DNS, SMTP).
Sometimes at UK ISP's well connected is a bit of a broad statement !
One of the ISP has trouble staying up all week ! And we do get some
horrible ping times...
We also run a caching DNS on the Suse box.
Greg
>
> Regards.
> > > We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places,
> > > but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the
> > > arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not
> > > support.
> >
> > But a customized email can never use multiple recipients. So that can't
> > be an issue in your evaluation.
>
> Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the
> messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we
I'm sure there are lots of valid reasons, for example it might be
a late-breaking news email that ages very rapidly. It might be a
hot-stock pick which needs to get out before the market notices.
> were considereding bining the customised part.
FWIW. I see the trend going in the opposite direction. Customization
is where the industry is headed so it's likely only a matter of time
before that requirement comes back.
> > > My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
> >
> > > The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one
> > > of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually
> > > an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at
> > > anything above 512 mbits/sec.
> >
> > I would say that both of these are well connected. But well connected
> > in this context probable means few packet losses and few timeouts
> > at the various layers including at the application layer (DNS, SMTP).
>
> Sometimes at UK ISP's well connected is a bit of a broad statement !
> One of the ISP has trouble staying up all week ! And we do get some
> horrible ping times...
Even so, I think your setup meets the definition.
Regards.
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:17:19PM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
> My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
When the bandwidth required to send its mail is significantly smaller
than the bandwidth available. That is, if you have to send 100,000 5K
messages over a 1 hour period, you would need a T1, and you would fill
it to over 75% capacity.
In general, the concept of "well connected" is dependant on your mail
volume. If you only have to send a few non-time-sensitive emails a day,
your 9.6Kb modem is well connected. If you have to pay by the
kilo/mega/giga-byte of traffic, you're probably not well connected. If
opening up concurrencyremote connections and sending mail kills your
link for other applications using the network, you're not well (enough)
connected.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 03:30:08PM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
> Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the
> messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we
> were considereding bining the customised part.
If you *need* customized email per recipient, over a short time, the
general consensus is that you need a two-stage solution. The first
stage is to attempt to send each message directly, possibly re-using
qmail-remote to do the sending. Run as many qmail-remotes as you can,
possibly using qmail-rspawn to help with handling everything. If
sending a message fails temporarily (which will be the uncommon case),
inject it into the qmail queue. That way, deliveries that succeed never
get queued, and don't hit the queue I/O penalty.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
Hi,
Im need to rewrite the code for the pop3 server, need to get it delete mail
from 2 places (the same mail, that are store on 2 dif. servers with nfs
connection).
Have looked a bit at qmail-pop3d.c code but dosent relise where it really
delete the msg.
Plz help me out here,
// Magnus Löfqvist
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 06:53:56PM +0200, Magnus Löfqvist wrote:
> Have looked a bit at qmail-pop3d.c code but dosent relise where it really
> delete the msg.
pop3_quit(), look for unlink().
Regards, Uwe
Greetings,
This is an open letter to the developers of the main SMTP servers
that are used all over the Internet. In recent years, we have all
seen in the news the many instances where our privacy has been
compromised by big corporations or governments. Some recent
examples include the recent survey results that showed over 50%
of corporations in the USA check their employees Internet usage
and e-mails, the Carnivore system from the FBI, aimed at checking
e-mails for potential criminal activity, and the UK law that
would force the ISPs to send all e-mails from everyone to the
government. This is without even talking about the many crackers
who use sniffer to peak in on e-mails while they are in transit.
The traditional response from the geek community has been to
promote e-mail encryption such as PGP.
Unfortunatly, this has not worked well because for normal end
users, encryption is not an easy task. The encryption software
has to be installed, and each correspondant needs his or her own
key published. This is where my suggestion comes in. Every SMTP
server should build in their own public-key encryption algorithm,
to encrypt all transmissions between mail servers. This would cut
down on 50% of all security problems, and on the common fact that
e-mail is like sending a post card over the Internet. The way to
implement this is not with third party software or optional SSL
add-ons. This needs to be a feature which by default is turned
on. Each SMTP server could compute a random set of keys when it
is installed, and a simple new command could be added to retrieve
the public key. When any connection is made between the servers,
a public key would be fetched. If the remote server has not been
upgraded and does not support PKI, then the transmission would
continue in a normal way. If both servers support it, then
encryption could be established, automatically, using PKI.
Of course this is only a suggestion and cannot work unless the
popular SMTP servers software implement it. It is an easy thing
to implement Internet wise on the server to server side, since
only a few server software programs exist. It could also be
implemented on the server to client side if the client software
makers would collaborate. Simply implement the same mechanism for
connections to the client side and allow the client to see if the
server software supports PKI. With the same public encryption
standard used by every server, the client makers would implement
support for it in no time.
Thanks for your time, and I hope this open letter will be of
benefit to save our freedom and privacy in the Internet world.
Patrick Lambert
IT Consultant
Internet Society Member
--
Patrick Lambert - Computer Scientist
IT Consultant and Technical Writer
Phone: (819) 696-2204
FAX: (425) 740-0422
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> This is an open letter to the developers of the main SMTP servers
> that are used all over the Internet. In recent years, we have all
> seen in the news the many instances where our privacy has been
> compromised by big corporations or governments. Some recent
> examples include the recent survey results that showed over 50%
> of corporations in the USA check their employees Internet usage
> and e-mails
The problem with your solution is that server to server encryption
does not stop government and big corporations from looking at your
mail on the mail server after it has arrived. Ask any system admin
how hard it is to scan /var/mail or a users home directory. Answer,
it's trivial.
Since most users do not run their own mail servers, but access
one via POP/IMAP, your solution will not affect the vast majority
of people.
The *real* solution is to use some form of end-to-end encryption.
In other words, encrypt your email before it leaves your email
program (whether it be on a PC, a server or a handheld device) in
such a way that only the recipient can decrypt it. PGP and their
ilk already provide this capability.
What I do agree with is that doing this is currently way too
hard for the average user and any efforts to make this easier
are a good thing. But you need to direct your letter at the
email client programmers rather then the email server
programmers.
Regards.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Patrick Lambert wrote:
> compromised by big corporations or governments. Some recent
> examples include the recent survey results that showed over 50%
> of corporations in the USA check their employees Internet usage
> and e-mails, the Carnivore system from the FBI, aimed at checking
> e-mails for potential criminal activity, and the UK law that
> would force the ISPs to send all e-mails from everyone to the
> government. This is without even talking about the many crackers
AFAIK, (and I could be wrong about this), the UK law also has a section
about PGP, making it a felony to NOT produce your PGP key on demand.
"
The Bill means the UK government - specifically the Home Office and
Home Secretary Jack Straw - can demand encryption keys to any and all
data communications, with a prison sentence of two years for those who
do not comply with the order.
(source "http://uk.news.yahoo.com/000728/101/aedvu.html")"
Most email transmitted now doesn't require PGP protection, (or warrant it). I
know that with the amount of email I get in a day, I wouldn't want the
extra overhead of having to decrypt it all.
just my $0.02
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 11:33:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What I do agree with is that doing this is currently way too
> hard for the average user and any efforts to make this easier
> are a good thing. But you need to direct your letter at the
> email client programmers rather then the email server
> programmers.
I would have agreed with this 5 years ago, but the current version of WinPGP
for windows is so easy to use, that I don't believe this is the reason
anymore. I think the majority of people don't use PGP/PKI for the following
reaons:
1) They don't know it exists
2) They don't want to spend the money on PGP (if they're not eligible to use
the freeware version
3) They just don't consider their privacy to be important enough to warrant
the installation of a new software package.
--Adam
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 04:39:42PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 11:33:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What I do agree with is that doing this is currently way too
> > hard for the average user and any efforts to make this easier
> > are a good thing. But you need to direct your letter at the
> > email client programmers rather then the email server
> > programmers.
>
> I would have agreed with this 5 years ago, but the current version of WinPGP
> for windows is so easy to use, that I don't believe this is the reason
> anymore. I think the majority of people don't use PGP/PKI for the following
> reaons:
>
> 1) They don't know it exists
> 2) They don't want to spend the money on PGP (if they're not eligible to use
> the freeware version
> 3) They just don't consider their privacy to be important enough to warrant
> the installation of a new software package.
Key management is a non-zero effort, installation is a non-zero effort,
cost is a non-zero effort and actual usage is a non-zero effort.
Total transparency is what I define as "easy to use" in the context
of the average email user (who probably has an email address at AOL).
I'm afraid anything less won't get there.
Regards.
hello guys
thanks for your guys ,i have gone through tcpserver & tcprules docs
and created a file named
/etc/tcp.smtp content of which is 127.0.0.1 & local ip address
then
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp as
per the documentation of tcpserver and tcprules
and also added -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb to my tcpserver command
after tcpserver as per docs
my tcpserver command as
tcpserver -x /etc/tcpsmtpd/cdb -H -t 2 -l FQDN -C 150 -u uid -g
gid ipaddress smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>$1 |
/var/qmail/bin/splogger recordio qmail-smtpd 3&
also recordio is not logging messages to /var/log/messages
i am using redhat linux 6.1 , qmail 1-03 with qmail-ldap -20000601 patch
and openldap packages
i want to restrict my qmail-smtpd in a way that will stop smtp clients
like microsoft outlook express ,netscape messanger etc sending mails
through my qmail-smtpd as i told you befor its gonna be a webmail system
like hotmail & yahoo so i want to stop relaying of mails through my
qmail-smtpd
so please tell me why its not working for me i am shacking my heads from
last 3-4 days to just achive this
please guide me ,
once more thanks a lot for your help
with warmest Regards
Prashant Desai
do you have a ~/control/rcpthosts set up properly?
qmail does relay if this file is missing. put you domains in this file (one per line)
and your mailserver will only take mails for
this domains. with tcp.smtp you specify ip-ranges for witch you are willing to relay -
BUT only when ~/control/rcpthosts exists
hope that helps
;) a
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 3:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: urgent help required ! tcpserver & tcprules
>
>
>
> hello guys
>
> thanks for your guys ,i have gone through tcpserver & tcprules docs
> and created a file named
> /etc/tcp.smtp content of which is 127.0.0.1 & local ip address
>
> then
>
> tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp as
> per the documentation of tcpserver and tcprules
>
>
> and also added -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb to my tcpserver command
> after tcpserver as per docs
>
>
> my tcpserver command as
> tcpserver -x /etc/tcpsmtpd/cdb -H -t 2 -l FQDN -C 150 -u uid -g
> gid ipaddress smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>$1 |
> /var/qmail/bin/splogger recordio qmail-smtpd 3&
>
> also recordio is not logging messages to /var/log/messages
>
> i am using redhat linux 6.1 , qmail 1-03 with qmail-ldap -20000601 patch
> and openldap packages
>
> i want to restrict my qmail-smtpd in a way that will stop smtp clients
> like microsoft outlook express ,netscape messanger etc sending mails
> through my qmail-smtpd as i told you befor its gonna be a webmail system
> like hotmail & yahoo so i want to stop relaying of mails through my
> qmail-smtpd
>
>
> so please tell me why its not working for me i am shacking my heads from
> last 3-4 days to just achive this
>
> please guide me ,
>
> once more thanks a lot for your help
> with warmest Regards
> Prashant Desai
>
>
>
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:38:11PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote:
> > i think you don't want the `;' after "env".
> -snip-
>
> Are you sure?
Not any more.
Regards, Uwe
Hi All,
Could someone give me a list of characters (ascii) which are NOT
valid in a e-mail address...We had a problem with a user interface, and
want to add code to prevent occurance from happening again...
-Bill
On 29-Jul-2000, Bill Parker wrote:
> Could someone give me a list of characters (ascii) which are NOT
> valid in a e-mail address...We had a problem with a user interface, and
> want to add code to prevent occurance from happening again...
It's in RFC 822
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html
See also http://cr.yp.to/mess822.html
Ronny
Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The SMTP service may issue a QUIT, and immediately try again,
> resulting in a potential loop."
>
> The actual qmail-smtpd error message re bare LFs is
>
> 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html
>
> which would trigger the above fault if Microsoft's software does
> indeed send bare LFs - contributors suggest it does.
[...]
> Anyway, part of my reason for posting was to speculate on why
> a mailserver might get a flood of SMTP connections.
Now, I'm testing qmails behaviour under these conditions,
'cause I need to relay a quite reasonable amount of mail
through it a few times a week. This is no spam, though.
> The above bare LF issue is obviously one, as are
> smtpstone and a DoS. In my case, fixing the bare LF
> problem fixed the many-procs problem, by fixing the
> thing that was triggering it, but there may still be
> something that is 'broken' in Solaris 2.7. If I'm
> feeling brave, and happen to be working with that system
> again, I'll try smtpstone-ing it...
That'd be great. Because I can't imagine, why the
'bare-LFs' thing should only affect qmails on Solaris 7 -
and why it should trigger this undeterministic. If bare
LFs would be the reason, it should trigger on the first
mail, right?
By
Töns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
I have Hylafax set up on my server. I sent faxes from my username of paulb.
Whenever a fax is sent, Hylafax notifies me by email to my local machine
account, i.e. a message is sent to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
These messages sit in the local queue. I need to have them forwarded to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where I can pick them up via POP3.
Any ideas?
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 05:58:54PM +0100, Paul Broadwith wrote:
>
> I have Hylafax set up on my server. I sent faxes from my username of paulb.
> Whenever a fax is sent, Hylafax notifies me by email to my local machine
> account, i.e. a message is sent to:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> These messages sit in the local queue. I need to have them forwarded to:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Where I can pick them up via POP3.
>
> Any ideas?
Um, create a .qmail on <machine> in ~paulb containing
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? Or a .qmail-paulb in ~alias if ~paulb doesn't
exist?
J.
--
A conscience can sometimes be a pest.
Ask me about server colocation - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi everyone,
I've been noticing a lot of spam coming in to users on my qmail
server from popsite.net addresses. I guess they're just a big dialup
provider that obviously lets their users relay whatever they want
through their server. But anyway, the Helo, From, To, and Return-Path
are all garbage. The only thing that is consistent across emails is the
path it took to get to me, and it always starts with a popsite.net address.
I tried to put @popsite.net in my badmailfrom but that didn't work.
Is there any way to block all popsite.net connections? They always seem
to come from different addresses and subnets.
Thanks,
Dave
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:46:29AM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote:
! I tried to put @popsite.net in my badmailfrom but that didn't work.
badmailfrom is useless. :-) People can arbitrarily set their envelope
sender anyway.
! Is there any way to block all popsite.net connections? They always seem
! to come from different addresses and subnets.
Look into rblsmtpd, included with the ucspi-tcp package. You can make it
use the MAPS RBL (http://maps.vix.com/rbl/), and you can specify your
own list of addresses (that's IP address, not envelope sender address)
to block.
http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't
Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed
PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
