On 3/24/2006 5:06 PM, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
>> vdelivermail needs to respect qmail-inject's exit code, hence the
>> proposed patch.
>
> no, the real question is why is vpopmail even using qmail-inject to re-queue
> forwarded messages. Instead, qmail-queue should be used directly.
While I'm sure
on 3/23/06 9:40 PM, Tom Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Kurt Bigler wrote:
>> on 10/18/05 10:35 PM, Tom Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Jeff Salisbury wrote:
FYI, I am using version 5.3.5 of the vpopmail tools...
>>>
>>> T
At 02:02 PM 3/24/2006, you wrote:
On Friday 24 March 2006 12:39, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> At 11:47 AM 3/24/2006, Michael Krieger wrote:
> unless you're doing it in mysql. which works dandy.
or with Bruce Guenter's relay-ctrl package, which doesn't involve any
overly-specific hacks to tcpserv
On Friday 24 March 2006 13:53, Jeremy Kister wrote:
> spammers send my servers spam; folks on my server have email addresses
> forwarded to other email addresses.
>
> spammer -> qmail-smtpd
> qmail-smtpd -> qmail-queue
> qmail-queue -> qmail-send
> qmail-send -> qmail-lspawn
> qmail-lspawn -> qmail
On Friday 24 March 2006 12:39, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> At 11:47 AM 3/24/2006, Michael Krieger wrote:
> >To correct myself...
> >Each future POP authentication will update the expire time of the
> >open-smtp entry and rebuild the CDB file again.
> >
> >I don't believe it actually rebuilds the C
On 3/24/2006 4:40 PM, Michael Krieger wrote:
> Note return-path is blank, and fails to contain a newline. I'd
> fix the problem- being whatever is accepting this mail message into
> your queue in the first place.
I cannot fix millions of people's spamware. I honestly wish i could. :)
We so
Jeremy Kister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm using qmail and vpopmail in a rather large environment. I've always got several hundred messages in my queues because of unparsable header fields.delivery 50391: deferral: qmail-inject:_fatal:_unable_to_parse_this_line:/Return-Path:_Received:_from_wctc
no, no cdb rebuilding at all. this is with the patches to do so of course. my vpopmail tcp.smtp.cdb file hasn't been touched in just over three years. Good to know- thanks for the correction.of course, i have lots more mysql transactions going on all the time, but have had no performance
I'm using qmail and vpopmail in a rather large environment. I've always
got several hundred messages in my queues because of unparsable header
fields.
delivery 50391: deferral:
qmail-inject:_fatal:_unable_to_parse_this_line:/Return-Path:_Received:_from_wctc.net.airstream.mail8.psmtp.com_(wctc
At 01:05 PM 3/24/2006, you wrote:
unless you're doing it in mysql. which works dandy.
You sure about that?
the MySQL open relay database would speed up the cleanup of old entries
and the updates making that pretty quick, but ultimately it needs to make
that a cdb file that sets relayclient for
unless you're doing it in mysql. which works dandy.You sure about that?the MySQL open relay database would speed up the cleanup of old entries and the updates making that pretty quick, but ultimately it needs to make that a cdb file that sets relayclient for tcpserver to execute qmail-smtpd
At 11:47 AM 3/24/2006, Michael Krieger wrote:
To correct myself...
Each future POP authentication will update the expire time of the
open-smtp entry and rebuild the CDB file again.
I don't believe it actually rebuilds the CDB file here, but it does
update the open-smtp file with the new timest
On Friday 24 March 2006 11:36, David Chaplin-Loebell wrote:
> Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> >On Friday 24 March 2006 10:31, Michael Krieger wrote:
> >>SMTP Authentication seems to be the norm these days, and I'd encourage
> >> it. Now if only M$ would make it the default or easier than going into
> >>
To correct myself... Each future POP authentication will update the expire time of the open-smtp entry and rebuild the CDB file again.I don't believe it actually rebuilds the CDB file here, but it does update the open-smtp file with the new timestamp for the expiry. In any case, any chang
I have my clients use port 587 whenever possible, because I use RBLs on port 25 that block some dynamic address ranges.Is there a better practice for this?I'd also recommend turning of hostname lookups and identd lookups in tcpserver's command line.You may want to look at the REQUIREAUTH patch
i don't use smtp auth, so i wouldn't know. i thought you were claiming that most providers these days are doing smtp auth. I was stating that most mail CLIENTS (Outlook, Thunderbird, etc) tend to prefer any mangled authentication method in favour of sending a password in clear text, based on
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
On Friday 24 March 2006 10:31, Michael Krieger wrote:
SMTP Authentication seems to be the norm these days, and I'd encourage it.
Now if only M$ would make it the default or easier than going into
advanced settings when adding an account (and also the port 587 option)
On Friday 24 March 2006 10:41, Ron Guerin wrote:
> That's also not an error. The dnsreport.com site mixes opinion with
> fact and should not be considered a reliable source of information.
agreed. plus they're SPF zealots. I hate that :)
-Jeremy
--
Jeremy Kitchen ++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the
At 11:04 AM 3/24/2006, you wrote:
I know that it was broken on one of our mail servers a few years ago
(where it advertised it but then didn't authenticate properly) and
we got <10% of users properly authenticating and >90% of them not
(these are if I recall correctly and are of course rough
I know that it was broken on one of our mail servers a few years ago (where it advertised it but then didn't authenticate properly) and we got <10% of users properly authenticating and >90% of them not (these are if I recall correctly and are of course rough numbers. The general observation I
At 10:48 AM 3/24/2006, Michael Krieger wrote:
Keeping in mind most SMTP uses CRAM-MD5 or some equivalent these
days with some portion of challenge/response from the server for
authentication details... this of course happens automatically.
do you have a source for the claim of 'most'? just c
Keeping in mind most SMTP uses CRAM-MD5 or some equivalent these days with some portion of challenge/response from the server for authentication details... this of course happens automatically.Some e-mail clients will go kicking and screaming on self-signed certificates, particularly in a vi
Jeremy Oddo wrote:
> Lately, our mail has had trouble getting to Yahoo, Hotmail,
> and a smaller ISP. Sometimes the mail ends up in the spam
> folders so I know our mail is getting to their box. I
> checked the big blacklist sites and we are not listed. I
> then ran our domain through the test at
On Friday 24 March 2006 10:31, Michael Krieger wrote:
> SMTP Authentication seems to be the norm these days, and I'd encourage it.
> Now if only M$ would make it the default or easier than going into
> advanced settings when adding an account (and also the port 587 option).
why use port 587?
On Friday 24 March 2006 10:22, Jeremy Oddo wrote:
> Hi All--
>
> Sorry if this has been brought up in the past...I've been
> off the list for a couple years.
>
> Lately, our mail has had trouble getting to Yahoo, Hotmail,
> and a smaller ISP. Sometimes the mail ends up in the spam
> folders so I k
SMTP Authentication seems to be the norm these days, and I'd encourage it. Now if only M$ would make it the default or easier than going into advanced settings when adding an account (and also the port 587 option).-M Jeremy Kitchen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Friday 24 March 2006 09:52,
Just ignore it. In a world where machines could do only one thing due to a lack of power, machines greeted with their own name, which was where you want to deliver to. These days, where hundreds of domains can operate on one machine, this greeting just allows you to identify the server. It i
Hi All--
Sorry if this has been brought up in the past...I've been
off the list for a couple years.
Lately, our mail has had trouble getting to Yahoo, Hotmail,
and a smaller ISP. Sometimes the mail ends up in the spam
folders so I know our mail is getting to their box. I
checked the big blacklis
On Friday 24 March 2006 09:52, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> If it doesn't, just tell your users to make sure if they see it happen to
> hit send/receive and try again. Or switch to an smtp auth based solution
> if it's that big of a problem.
wow, I can't believe I didn't mention this before:
a third o
On Friday 24 March 2006 07:59, Andrew Simon wrote:
> I am running qmail/courier-map/vpopmail 5.4.2 system. It is working well.
> However occassionally users get the
>
> "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)"
>
> Its not all the time. They are outside the office when
I am running qmail/courier-map/vpopmail 5.4.2
system. It is working well. However occassionally users get the
"553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)"
Its not all the time. They are outside the office
when this happens. I am using smtp after pop. All the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
I am new to this list, but I have scoured the net for a solution but even
google couldn't help me...
I sent this message to the courier-imap list but didn't get an answer
(and a pointer to ask this list). Though I am not sure if the problem
lies
32 matches
Mail list logo
