[opensuse] Virtual domain, between Postfix and Qmail
please enlight me with this issue : As far as i know, Postfix can handle virtual domain, but it can not has the same username for virtual doman. For example I have 2 domain on my server : - domain www.a.com and - domain www.b.com If i have a user named 'hans', and hans is with a.com domain, then i'll have hans@a.com. If b.com domain has a user also name hans, then Postfix will not be able to see there are 2 hans, but only 1 hans. Thus, i can not have hans@b.com. Am i right? On the other hand, qmail will be able to do that. And there are many additional tool for qmail to set that up like vmailmanager, vpopadmin etc, but not postfix. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hans Linux wrote:
please enlight me with this issue : As far as i know, Postfix can handle virtual domain, but it can not has the same username for virtual doman. For example I have 2 domain on my server : - domain www.a.com and - domain www.b.com
If i have a user named 'hans', and hans is with a.com domain, then i'll have hans@a.com. If b.com domain has a user also name hans, then Postfix will not be able to see there are 2 hans, but only 1 hans. Thus, i can not have hans@b.com. Am i right?
No. This is true for domains in $mydestination, but not for domains in virtual_mailbox_domains.
On the other hand, qmail will be able to do that. And there are many additional tool for qmail to set that up like vmailmanager, vpopadmin etc, but not postfix.
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.". -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 13:39 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hans Linux wrote:
please enlight me with this issue : As far as i know, Postfix can handle virtual domain, but it can not has the same username for virtual doman. For example I have 2 domain on my server : - domain www.a.com and - domain www.b.com
If i have a user named 'hans', and hans is with a.com domain, then i'll have hans@a.com. If b.com domain has a user also name hans, then Postfix will not be able to see there are 2 hans, but only 1 hans. Thus, i can not have hans@b.com. Am i right?
No. This is true for domains in $mydestination, but not for domains in virtual_mailbox_domains.
On the other hand, qmail will be able to do that. And there are many additional tool for qmail to set that up like vmailmanager, vpopadmin etc, but not postfix.
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.".
I do prefer, no doubt about it, qmail. Check www.shupp.org, and install in a twinkle the best mail server (imho, of course). And after, enjoy with a master piece of software. Cheers, Alejandro.
-- Sandy
List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hudibras wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.".
I do prefer, no doubt about it, qmail. Check www.shupp.org, and install in a twinkle the best mail server (imho, of course). And after, enjoy with a master piece of software.
What features were the deciding factor for you to choose Qmail? I don't have any experience with Qmail myself, I chose Postfix because it has a great support community, a very active development and the documentation is extensive and accurate. Features like DSN and Policy Server/Milters also became very important. If I had to choose another MTA other than Postfix I would probably switch to Exim. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 15:06 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.".
I do prefer, no doubt about it, qmail. Check www.shupp.org, and install in a twinkle the best mail server (imho, of course). And after, enjoy with a master piece of software.
What features were the deciding factor for you to choose Qmail? I don't have any experience with Qmail myself, I chose Postfix because it has a great support community, a very active development and the documentation is extensive and accurate. Features like DSN and Policy Server/Milters also became very important.
Do as you like. It's only my advice. But after many years testing nearly every mail server, I don't change qmail for anything in this world. It's simply a master piece of software. People who knows me also know my opinion about qmail, and I think this way from 1998-1999, when I tested the first time. All features you like in a mail server, qmail does have them. So, why don't you try and if not of your taste, install any other. I can assure you my qmail is really the same I've got from 2002. And I sleep peacefully while qmail works. That's not good, I know, but if you don't want be ever watching a mail server, install qmail and forget yourself.
If I had to choose another MTA other than Postfix I would probably switch to Exim.
Postfix and Exim are two great mail servers, but I still do prefer qmail, because (and it's only my opinion) is much better in most cases. qmail version is the same from 1998, and it does not need any more; but there are many people around helping and making "add-ons", making it more powerful and never, never, never has a security hole or anything like these. However, sendmail or postfix really have holes... or is that not true? So decide and have a try qmail, and you'll not be disappointed. Cheers, Alejandro.
-- Sandy
List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 15:06 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.". I do prefer, no doubt about it, qmail. Check www.shupp.org, and install in a twinkle the best mail server (imho, of course). And after, enjoy with a master piece of software. What features were the deciding factor for you to choose Qmail? I don't have any experience with Qmail myself, I chose Postfix because it has a great support community, a very active development and the documentation is extensive and accurate. Features like DSN and Policy Server/Milters also became very important.
Do as you like. It's only my advice.
But after many years testing nearly every mail server, I don't change qmail for anything in this world. It's simply a master piece of software. People who knows me also know my opinion about qmail, and I think this way from 1998-1999, when I tested the first time.
It's great that you like Qmail, but this doesn't give my any information to compare it to Postfix. Ideally it would be great if someone had worked with both programs and could compare how much effort it took to reach the same result. The first (beta) version of Postfix was released 1999, the first stable release 1.0 appeared 2001, so I guess you didn't test Postfix at that time.
All features you like in a mail server, qmail does have them. So, why don't you try and if not of your taste, install any other. I can assure you my qmail is really the same I've got from 2002. And I sleep peacefully while qmail works. That's not good, I know, but if you don't want be ever watching a mail server, install qmail and forget yourself.
I have heard the same being said about Postfix. I still wonder how anyone can just install a mailserver and then forget about it. I am always finetuning the configuration to adapt to new spammer tricks. agreed, it would probably work without finetuning, but the rate of rejected spam would probably drop a lot. A big German ISP tested this, they simply stopped finetuning their configuration and noticed a considerable drop in their rejection rate.
If I had to choose another MTA other than Postfix I would probably switch to Exim.
Postfix and Exim are two great mail servers, but I still do prefer qmail, because (and it's only my opinion) is much better in most cases. qmail version is the same from 1998, and it does not need any more; but there are many people around helping and making "add-ons", making it more powerful and never, never, never has a security hole or anything like these. However, sendmail or postfix really have holes... or is that not true?
At least for Postfix it is not true. Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year. One good hint how secure Postfix is: Borderware has chosen Postfix as the MTA of their Firewall.
So decide and have a try qmail, and you'll not be disappointed.
So far, this does not yet give me enough encouragement to invest the many month of work to dig into Qmail as I did with Postfix. Before I change I have to know if the annoyances in Postfix are worth dealing with the annoyances of another MTA. Every piece of software has some drawbacks, the question is rather if I am willing to live with it or if I can circumvent the annoyance. Since I know Postfix quite well, so I know how to work around the annoyances of Postfix, but that is not the case with Qmail (or Exim or Sendmail). Recipient validation for example is very important, how and at what stage of the smtp dialogue is it done in Qmail? I would probably have to spend quite some hours to find the anwser. Time is expensive, I only have a limited supply of it. (^-^) -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 29 June 2007 23:15, Sandy Drobic wrote:
Recipient validation for example is very important, how and at what stage of the smtp dialogue is it done in Qmail? I would probably have to spend quite some hours to find the anwser. Time is expensive, I only have a limited supply of it. (^-^)
Hello Sandy, I use qmail, but still lots to learn (including postfix, I'm very interested). Regarding the recipient validation, the patched qmail will drop any connection to non-existence user at the smtp level. So, the spam hasn't enter the system yet, conserving bandwidth and cpu power. -- Fajar Priyanto | Reg'd Linux User #327841 | Linux tutorial http://linux2.arinet.org 11:50pm up 2:51, 2.6.18.2-34-default GNU/Linux Let's use OpenOffice. http://www.openoffice.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 23:50 +0700, Fajar Priyanto escribió:
On Friday 29 June 2007 23:15, Sandy Drobic wrote:
Recipient validation for example is very important, how and at what stage of the smtp dialogue is it done in Qmail? I would probably have to spend quite some hours to find the anwser. Time is expensive, I only have a limited supply of it. (^-^)
Hello Sandy, I use qmail, but still lots to learn (including postfix, I'm very interested). Regarding the recipient validation, the patched qmail will drop any connection to non-existence user at the smtp level. So, the spam hasn't enter the system yet, conserving bandwidth and cpu power.
That's it! And not only that. In order to spammers not to aprehend the mail accounts, if you want, you can configure it so that moving to a "receive all" mails suspected to be spam. But the best thing is Maildir boxes. Many people wrote out that its algorithm is simply genious. Well, I don't know if this still goes, but this very mail list is ezmlm, the qmail module for mailing lists... Any can give me any notice referred to this? At least, Spanish SuSE list was ezmlm... I don't know if actually is qmail or someone changed it for another program, but it was qmail before, that's a really true. Cheers, Alejandro. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:08:52 Hudibras wrote:
Well, I don't know if this still goes, but this very mail list is ezmlm,
No, it's mlmmj
the qmail module for mailing lists... Any can give me any notice referred to this? At least, Spanish SuSE list was ezmlm... I don't know if actually is qmail or someone changed it for another program, but it was qmail before, that's a really true.
Yes, it used to be, but it was hiding behind postfix servers. ezmlm was really the only reason it was there -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-06-29 at 19:08 +0200, Hudibras wrote:
Well, I don't know if this still goes, but this very mail list is ezmlm, the qmail module for mailing lists... Any can give me any notice referred to this? At least, Spanish SuSE list was ezmlm... I don't know if actually is qmail or someone changed it for another program, but it was qmail before, that's a really true.
The lists at @suse were all managed with ezmlm. With the change to @opensuse.org they ditched ezmlm for good, and switched to mlmmj (just check the "Mailing-List" header for confirmation). This is on record somewhere. I remember one of the suse admins saying here that they used ezmlm because it was the best, and the list server used qmail because ezmlm needed it, and not any other reason; in fact, it was behind another email server running postfix. So, now they use mlmmj and postfix, both included with the distribution (neither qmail nor ezmlm can be). 86.rpm: Name : mlmmj Relocations: (not relocatable) ... 86.rpm: URL : http://mlmmj.mmj.dk/ 86.rpm: Summary : Mail Server Independent Reimplementation of the EZMLM Mailing List 86.rpm: 86.rpm: Description : 86.rpm: This is an attempt at implementing a mailing list manager with the same 86.rpm: functionality as EZMLM, but with the MIT/X11 license and no mail server 86.rpm: dependency. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGhi3EtTMYHG2NR9URAoK8AJ0cTf78TQ3qTr/d+8Ew3K3/5RkvYQCgh7yi zHjqF7LwWJgRxpByhsxWTwY= =YBLI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 18:15 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 15:06 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.". I do prefer, no doubt about it, qmail. Check www.shupp.org, and install in a twinkle the best mail server (imho, of course). And after, enjoy with a master piece of software. What features were the deciding factor for you to choose Qmail? I don't have any experience with Qmail myself, I chose Postfix because it has a great support community, a very active development and the documentation is extensive and accurate. Features like DSN and Policy Server/Milters also became very important.
Do as you like. It's only my advice.
But after many years testing nearly every mail server, I don't change qmail for anything in this world. It's simply a master piece of software. People who knows me also know my opinion about qmail, and I think this way from 1998-1999, when I tested the first time.
It's great that you like Qmail, but this doesn't give my any information to compare it to Postfix.
I've no time (maybe several hours...) to explain each other capabilities. But this is not the forum to that. I only said if you would like a great (the best one, imho) MTA, qmail would be the first to begin with.
Ideally it would be great if someone had worked with both programs and could compare how much effort it took to reach the same result.
i've worked with both and more programs, as I said before.
The first (beta) version of Postfix was released 1999, the first stable release 1.0 appeared 2001, so I guess you didn't test Postfix at that time.
Well, I've said I began to test MTAs in 1998-1999, but I refered to it in general, not considering Postfix o Exaim or Sendmail dates of release. That is not important. I assure you I have used Postfix and I missed mails, because of smtp deliveries if some cases. However that thing never happened with qmail, independently the type of delivery, domain existance or not, etc.
All features you like in a mail server, qmail does have them. So, why don't you try and if not of your taste, install any other. I can assure you my qmail is really the same I've got from 2002. And I sleep peacefully while qmail works. That's not good, I know, but if you don't want be ever watching a mail server, install qmail and forget yourself.
I have heard the same being said about Postfix. I still wonder how anyone can just install a mailserver and then forget about it. I am always finetuning the configuration to adapt to new spammer tricks. agreed, it would probably work without finetuning, but the rate of rejected spam would probably drop a lot.
Of course. Postfix is a very very good MTA. I agree with you. But... qmail is better. It's completely modular, and... several of today Postfix capabilities are "copied" from qmail, like Maildir boxes... and more.
A big German ISP tested this, they simply stopped finetuning their configuration and noticed a considerable drop in their rejection rate.
I've heard more things like this about qmail... So, that's not important to me. For instance, several of the most important Domain Registration Servers use qmail! I hope you know what I mean (my English is not as good as my mother tongue).
If I had to choose another MTA other than Postfix I would probably switch to Exim.
Postfix and Exim are two great mail servers, but I still do prefer qmail, because (and it's only my opinion) is much better in most cases. qmail version is the same from 1998, and it does not need any more; but there are many people around helping and making "add-ons", making it more powerful and never, never, never has a security hole or anything like these. However, sendmail or postfix really have holes... or is that not true?
At least for Postfix it is not true.
Yes. I saw time ago a severe security fix for Postfix... qmail doesn't have ANY ONE.
Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year.
Yes. Sendmail is already history...
One good hint how secure Postfix is: Borderware has chosen Postfix as the MTA of their Firewall.
Ok. I'm pleased for that. Sorry, but I don't know Borderware, so, it's not a very relevant notice.
So decide and have a try qmail, and you'll not be disappointed.
So far, this does not yet give me enough encouragement to invest the many month of work to dig into Qmail as I did with Postfix. Before I change I have to know if the annoyances in Postfix are worth dealing with the annoyances of another MTA. Every piece of software has some drawbacks, the question is rather if I am willing to live with it or if I can circumvent the annoyance.
Sorry. It's your choice.
Since I know Postfix quite well, so I know how to work around the annoyances of Postfix, but that is not the case with Qmail (or Exim or Sendmail).
Really. But this happens to everything.
Recipient validation for example is very important, how and at what stage of the smtp dialogue is it done in Qmail? I would probably have to spend quite some hours to find the anwser. Time is expensive, I only have a limited supply of it. (^-^)
All right. Cheers, Alejandro.
-- Sandy
List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:00:39 Hudibras wrote:
Yes. I saw time ago a severe security fix for Postfix... qmail doesn't have ANY ONE.
CAN-2005-1515
Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year.
Yes. Sendmail is already history...
Sendmail is used bz considerably more, and considerably larger installations than qmail. But let's stop the hearsay debate, OK? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 19:01 +0200, Anders Johansson escribió:
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:00:39 Hudibras wrote:
Yes. I saw time ago a severe security fix for Postfix... qmail doesn't have ANY ONE.
CAN-2005-1515
Then, he who did found the hole will be rewarded with the $1000 Dan Bernstein offered if someone would exploit qmail! I will find more discussion about this, even mailing to the same Dan Bernstein or Bill Shupp or Dave Sill. Even more, if this is true, can Sendmail or Postfix or any else be so proud of having one only security hole? It's seems to me unbelieveable that if another MTA have hundreds of holes, it doesn't mind: "It's a human product"; but if, in any other case, is referred to qmail, then qmail is not good. Well.
Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year.
Yes. Sendmail is already history...
Sendmail is used bz considerably more, and considerably larger installations than qmail.
But let's stop the hearsay debate, OK? No. It's not a debate. I think it's a very good thing to discuss things,
Yes. In 1929 considerably more people voted Hitler. programs, servers here. I learn a lot! I read many many mails here I'm not agree with, but I do look up everyone, their taste, their opinions and their ideas. And why not if I advice qmail to a mailing list friend? Is it that a deadly sin? Why it's has to be anyone oppositing ideas and sometimes with not very friendly words? Cheers, Alejandro. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 19:58 +0200, Anders Johansson escribió:
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:52:10 Hudibras wrote:
Yes. In 1929 considerably more people voted Hitler.
Sorry, you lose
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... great! But I was born in 1964. In 1929 I didn't exist, you do? I'm sorry for you! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 29 June 2007 21:32:51 Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 19:58 +0200, Anders Johansson escribió:
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:52:10 Hudibras wrote:
Yes. In 1929 considerably more people voted Hitler.
Sorry, you lose
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... great! But I was born in 1964. In 1929 I didn't exist, you do?
That has nothing to do with it. Whenever anyone brings up WW2 in a discussion not directly related to it, they automatically lose the argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hudibras wrote:
Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year. Yes. Sendmail is already history... Sendmail is used bz considerably more, and considerably larger installations than qmail.
Yes. In 1929 considerably more people voted Hitler.
But let's stop the hearsay debate, OK? No. It's not a debate. I think it's a very good thing to discuss things, programs, servers here. I learn a lot!
Debate is okay, but please no more comparisons like the one above. That kills any desire to debate. :-( -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-06-29 at 19:52 +0200, Hudibras wrote:
Sendmail is used bz considerably more, and considerably larger installations than qmail.
Yes. In 1929 considerably more people voted Hitler.
You are godwinated! Sorry, end of argument: you lost. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGhjEqtTMYHG2NR9URAuJ9AJwN1KREXqOOsKOJcjnRYcw6SIKecwCgiNra NJl7JK65Cqr7j2a4HEUD4Ps= =MdKl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El sáb, 30-06-2007 a las 12:32 +0200, Carlos E. R. escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2007-06-29 at 19:52 +0200, Hudibras wrote:
Sendmail is used bz considerably more, and considerably larger installations than qmail.
Yes. In 1929 considerably more people voted Hitler.
You are godwinated!
Sorry, Carlos, but I don't know the word godwinated (from -god-win-ated)? But whether my English is so bad as I think, or all of you haven't understood my sentence. But it doesnt' mind. I cannot hope people understand thoughts.
Sorry, end of argument: you lost.
No. I didn't play that time! Cheers, Alejandro.
- -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFGhjEqtTMYHG2NR9URAuJ9AJwN1KREXqOOsKOJcjnRYcw6SIKecwCgiNra NJl7JK65Cqr7j2a4HEUD4Ps= =MdKl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-06-30 at 14:10 +0200, Hudibras wrote:
You are godwinated!
Sorry, Carlos, but I don't know the word godwinated (from -god-win-ated)?
Google it! You have a very good explanation in the English wikipedia: search for Godwins Law. It means simply that any one that in any argument mentions Hitler or the nazis looses the argument instantly. By definition. It's part of the internet culture: you can not make any comparison to those people. End. En español: que si en una discusión en internet usas o aplicas una comparación a Hitler o a los nazis, por definición has perdido la discusión, dejas de tener cualquier razón que pudieras tener. Es parte de la cultura de internet. Fin. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGhnHWtTMYHG2NR9URAqUsAJ9mstKsO8hO8xUD7eIKxwMY0fwWcQCfbR0h 1QuQ4mQAACc9s//EEbUIb4s= =PsqG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
El sáb, 30-06-2007 a las 17:08 +0200, Carlos E. R. escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Saturday 2007-06-30 at 14:10 +0200, Hudibras wrote:
You are godwinated!
Sorry, Carlos, but I don't know the word godwinated (from -god-win-ated)?
Google it! You have a very good explanation in the English wikipedia: search for Godwins Law.
It means simply that any one that in any argument mentions Hitler or the nazis looses the argument instantly. By definition. It's part of the internet culture: you can not make any comparison to those people.
End.
En español: que si en una discusión en internet usas o aplicas una comparación a Hitler o a los nazis, por definición has perdido la discusión, dejas de tener cualquier razón que pudieras tener. Es parte de la cultura de internet.
¡Gracias! Pues, mira, no sabía yo eso... Pero yo sólo lo puse como el mejor o el más "despectivo" ejemplo de que no siempre "todo el mundo" lleva la razón. Era sólo eso. Pido mil perdones. Chao, Alejandro.
Fin.
- -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFGhnHWtTMYHG2NR9URAqUsAJ9mstKsO8hO8xUD7eIKxwMY0fwWcQCfbR0h 1QuQ4mQAACc9s//EEbUIb4s= =PsqG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-06-30 at 19:01 +0200, Hudibras wrote:
It means simply that any one that in any argument mentions Hitler or the nazis looses the argument instantly. By definition. It's part of the internet culture: you can not make any comparison to those people.
End.
En español: que si en una discusión en internet usas o aplicas una ...
¡Gracias! Pues, mira, no sabía yo eso...
We all learn :-)
Pero yo sólo lo puse como el mejor o el más "despectivo" ejemplo de que no siempre "todo el mundo" lleva la razón. Era sólo eso. Pido mil perdones.
But if you don't start trimming your messages down (quotes etc), we will have your head cut yet! :-P - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGh5AvtTMYHG2NR9URAq7iAJ9Uv2MEt4HAM1UsPxuGZCT6mtugOwCgj0v6 WZc+Rg8nymquDtYrOmca0Ko= =Gq7R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 19:01 +0200, Anders Johansson escribió:
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:00:39 Hudibras wrote:
Yes. I saw time ago a severe security fix for Postfix... qmail doesn't have ANY ONE.
CAN-2005-1515
Sorry... I didn't know this issue, but it's only with Linux... that says much about Linux security??? Dan Bernstein (the qmail author) says he doesn't like Linux, his choice is BSD. If qmail can be exploited on a BSD box, I will then say that qmail is not as secure as everyone says. I do complain about not to be much explicit in English. I would say more things in Spanish. So, sorry everyone! Bye, Alejandro.
Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year.
Yes. Sendmail is already history...
Sendmail is used bz considerably more, and considerably larger installations than qmail.
But let's stop the hearsay debate, OK?
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:59:52 Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 19:01 +0200, Anders Johansson escribió:
On Friday 29 June 2007 19:00:39 Hudibras wrote:
Yes. I saw time ago a severe security fix for Postfix... qmail doesn't have ANY ONE.
CAN-2005-1515
Sorry... I didn't know this issue, but it's only with Linux... that says much about Linux security???
It is an application error, it has nothing to do with the OS. It is valid for all 64 bit platforms -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 18:15 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 15:06 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.". I do prefer, no doubt about it, qmail. Check www.shupp.org, and install in a twinkle the best mail server (imho, of course). And after, enjoy with a master piece of software. What features were the deciding factor for you to choose Qmail? I don't have any experience with Qmail myself, I chose Postfix because it has a great support community, a very active development and the documentation is extensive and accurate. Features like DSN and Policy Server/Milters also became very important. Do as you like. It's only my advice.
But after many years testing nearly every mail server, I don't change qmail for anything in this world. It's simply a master piece of software. People who knows me also know my opinion about qmail, and I think this way from 1998-1999, when I tested the first time. It's great that you like Qmail, but this doesn't give my any information to compare it to Postfix.
I've no time (maybe several hours...) to explain each other capabilities. But this is not the forum to that. I only said if you would like a great (the best one, imho) MTA, qmail would be the first to begin with.
I've got the same problem (not enough time), so I am very careful when the project will consume hundreds of hours (it does take that much time to really understand another program of that scale).
Ideally it would be great if someone had worked with both programs and could compare how much effort it took to reach the same result.
i've worked with both and more programs, as I said before.
That should give you a good basis to remember some circumstances where something was very easy to configure in one product and much more difficult in another. That is what I am looking for, the gotchas that you encounter when you start to learn a program.
The first (beta) version of Postfix was released 1999, the first stable release 1.0 appeared 2001, so I guess you didn't test Postfix at that time.
Well, I've said I began to test MTAs in 1998-1999, but I refered to it in general, not considering Postfix o Exaim or Sendmail dates of release. That is not important. I assure you I have used Postfix and I missed mails, because of smtp deliveries if some cases. However that thing never happened with qmail, independently the type of delivery, domain existance or not, etc.
That is also what I am looking for. Can you remember under what circumstances it happened and how long ago (which Postfix version)?
All features you like in a mail server, qmail does have them. So, why don't you try and if not of your taste, install any other. I can assure you my qmail is really the same I've got from 2002. And I sleep peacefully while qmail works. That's not good, I know, but if you don't want be ever watching a mail server, install qmail and forget yourself. I have heard the same being said about Postfix. I still wonder how anyone can just install a mailserver and then forget about it. I am always finetuning the configuration to adapt to new spammer tricks. agreed, it would probably work without finetuning, but the rate of rejected spam would probably drop a lot.
Of course. Postfix is a very very good MTA. I agree with you. But... qmail is better. It's completely modular, and... several of today Postfix capabilities are "copied" from qmail, like Maildir boxes... and more.
Grin! If Postfix has (copied) all those features you like I don't need to learn Qmail. (^-^) Wietse himself said, that he rebuild in Postfix a lot of features he liked in Sendmail. One of the bigger implementations of new features was the milter protocol that was used only for Sendmail before. That gives Postfix admins access to the large base of milter applications. He even got a price from Sendmail for his implementation.
A big German ISP tested this, they simply stopped finetuning their configuration and noticed a considerable drop in their rejection rate.
I've heard more things like this about qmail... So, that's not important to me. For instance, several of the most important Domain Registration Servers use qmail! I hope you know what I mean (my English is not as good as my mother tongue).
Qmail is one of the standard MTAs, no question.
If I had to choose another MTA other than Postfix I would probably switch to Exim. Postfix and Exim are two great mail servers, but I still do prefer qmail, because (and it's only my opinion) is much better in most cases. qmail version is the same from 1998, and it does not need any more; but there are many people around helping and making "add-ons", making it more powerful and never, never, never has a security hole or anything like these. However, sendmail or postfix really have holes... or is that not true? At least for Postfix it is not true.
Yes. I saw time ago a severe security fix for Postfix... qmail doesn't have ANY ONE.
Uh, which one? The only one I can remember was a TLS problem for Postfix 2.1. At that time Postfix itself had no own TLS implementation, so the support was added with a 3rd party patch. That was also origin of the security bug.
Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year.
Yes. Sendmail is already history...
Sendmail is still the most widely implemented MTA, so I do not agree, even if I myself don't like Sendmail. The few times I had to deal with it were a nightmare. Of course the main reason was, that I didn't knew (and still don't know) enough about Sendmail.
One good hint how secure Postfix is: Borderware has chosen Postfix as the MTA of their Firewall.
Ok. I'm pleased for that. Sorry, but I don't know Borderware, so, it's not a very relevant notice.
One of the better known firewall distributors.
So decide and have a try qmail, and you'll not be disappointed. So far, this does not yet give me enough encouragement to invest the many month of work to dig into Qmail as I did with Postfix. Before I change I have to know if the annoyances in Postfix are worth dealing with the annoyances of another MTA. Every piece of software has some drawbacks, the question is rather if I am willing to live with it or if I can circumvent the annoyance.
Sorry. It's your choice.
No need to be sorry. I happen to like Postfix.
Since I know Postfix quite well, so I know how to work around the annoyances of Postfix, but that is not the case with Qmail (or Exim or Sendmail).
Really. But this happens to everything.
That is exactly my point. I like to learn new things, but I also like to know what I am about to start, especially when I decide to learn a new MTA. A good start is important. What mailinglist/website would you recommend for a QMail beginner? Where are good sites with accurate documentations and how-tos? I just saw http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html, which had some nice information, though it seemed a bit old (they were talking about the situation in 2001). -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 20:37 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 18:15 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 15:06 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
> What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do > that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". > If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one > you are able to administer and debug.". I do prefer, no doubt about it, qmail. Check www.shupp.org, and install in a twinkle the best mail server (imho, of course). And after, enjoy with a master piece of software. What features were the deciding factor for you to choose Qmail? I don't have any experience with Qmail myself, I chose Postfix because it has a great support community, a very active development and the documentation is extensive and accurate. Features like DSN and Policy Server/Milters also became very important. Do as you like. It's only my advice.
But after many years testing nearly every mail server, I don't change qmail for anything in this world. It's simply a master piece of software. People who knows me also know my opinion about qmail, and I think this way from 1998-1999, when I tested the first time. It's great that you like Qmail, but this doesn't give my any information to compare it to Postfix.
I've no time (maybe several hours...) to explain each other capabilities. But this is not the forum to that. I only said if you would like a great (the best one, imho) MTA, qmail would be the first to begin with.
I've got the same problem (not enough time), so I am very careful when the project will consume hundreds of hours (it does take that much time to really understand another program of that scale).
The only thing I can tell you is that I spent many more time learning qmail than Sendmail or Postfix.
Ideally it would be great if someone had worked with both programs and could compare how much effort it took to reach the same result.
i've worked with both and more programs, as I said before.
That should give you a good basis to remember some circumstances where something was very easy to configure in one product and much more difficult in another. That is what I am looking for, the gotchas that you encounter when you start to learn a program.
Sorry but I don't understand much of your words... sorry! My English comprehension is bad sometimes...
The first (beta) version of Postfix was released 1999, the first stable release 1.0 appeared 2001, so I guess you didn't test Postfix at that time.
Well, I've said I began to test MTAs in 1998-1999, but I refered to it in general, not considering Postfix o Exaim or Sendmail dates of release. That is not important. I assure you I have used Postfix and I missed mails, because of smtp deliveries if some cases. However that thing never happened with qmail, independently the type of delivery, domain existance or not, etc.
That is also what I am looking for. Can you remember under what circumstances it happened and how long ago (which Postfix version)?
Uf... I'll try to explain as good as possible in my bad English. As smtp local server, I tried to send mails and none of them reached its target; qmail does: it sends any mail I want it does, even with "fake" accounts, with my regular MUA. I always say the same story: I never missed any piece of mail with qmail; with others do.
All features you like in a mail server, qmail does have them. So, why don't you try and if not of your taste, install any other. I can assure you my qmail is really the same I've got from 2002. And I sleep peacefully while qmail works. That's not good, I know, but if you don't want be ever watching a mail server, install qmail and forget yourself. I have heard the same being said about Postfix. I still wonder how anyone can just install a mailserver and then forget about it. I am always finetuning the configuration to adapt to new spammer tricks. agreed, it would probably work without finetuning, but the rate of rejected spam would probably drop a lot.
Of course. Postfix is a very very good MTA. I agree with you. But... qmail is better. It's completely modular, and... several of today Postfix capabilities are "copied" from qmail, like Maildir boxes... and more.
Grin! If Postfix has (copied) all those features you like I don't need to learn Qmail. (^-^)
Ha, ha, ha... sharp!
Wietse himself said, that he rebuild in Postfix a lot of features he liked in Sendmail. One of the bigger implementations of new features was the milter protocol that was used only for Sendmail before. That gives Postfix admins access to the large base of milter applications. He even got a price from Sendmail for his implementation.
I'not an opposite to Sendmail or Postfix; but I say I prefer qmail over all others.
A big German ISP tested this, they simply stopped finetuning their configuration and noticed a considerable drop in their rejection rate.
I've heard more things like this about qmail... So, that's not important to me. For instance, several of the most important Domain Registration Servers use qmail! I hope you know what I mean (my English is not as good as my mother tongue).
Qmail is one of the standard MTAs, no question.
Sure!
If I had to choose another MTA other than Postfix I would probably switch to Exim. Postfix and Exim are two great mail servers, but I still do prefer qmail, because (and it's only my opinion) is much better in most cases. qmail version is the same from 1998, and it does not need any more; but there are many people around helping and making "add-ons", making it more powerful and never, never, never has a security hole or anything like these. However, sendmail or postfix really have holes... or is that not true? At least for Postfix it is not true.
Yes. I saw time ago a severe security fix for Postfix... qmail doesn't have ANY ONE.
Uh, which one? The only one I can remember was a TLS problem for Postfix 2.1. At that time Postfix itself had no own TLS implementation, so the support was added with a 3rd party patch. That was also origin of the security bug.
Sorry, I can't remember: my memory is not as good as for remembering every issue with all programs I don't use... But I can recall several holes.
Sendmail had some problems with security some years ago. In the last years I they tightened their code a lot. Though I do remember that Sendmail had a remote exploitable bug last year.
Yes. Sendmail is already history...
Sendmail is still the most widely implemented MTA, so I do not agree, even if I myself don't like Sendmail. The few times I had to deal with it were a nightmare. Of course the main reason was, that I didn't knew (and still don't know) enough about Sendmail.
Yes, but this is due to certain terror to change things. Sometimes people is considerably "traditional" or "conservative". I'm sure I'm not: if someone can advice me to test another thing, anything and of any kind, I'm willing to try it, and if I can see it's better or it likes me more, I have it. I'm not afraid to try new things.
One good hint how secure Postfix is: Borderware has chosen Postfix as the MTA of their Firewall.
Ok. I'm pleased for that. Sorry, but I don't know Borderware, so, it's not a very relevant notice.
One of the better known firewall distributors.
Ooppss... sorry. I'm not concerned with hard & soft products... my job is nothing to do with computers from 2002, so I've forgotten nearly everything about it. Even other distributors or computer related things I knew have been forgotten too..
So decide and have a try qmail, and you'll not be disappointed. So far, this does not yet give me enough encouragement to invest the many month of work to dig into Qmail as I did with Postfix. Before I change I have to know if the annoyances in Postfix are worth dealing with the annoyances of another MTA. Every piece of software has some drawbacks, the question is rather if I am willing to live with it or if I can circumvent the annoyance.
Sorry. It's your choice.
No need to be sorry. I happen to like Postfix.
Ok. Great for you!
Since I know Postfix quite well, so I know how to work around the annoyances of Postfix, but that is not the case with Qmail (or Exim or Sendmail).
Really. But this happens to everything.
That is exactly my point. I like to learn new things, but I also like to know what I am about to start, especially when I decide to learn a new MTA. A good start is important. What mailinglist/website would you recommend for a QMail beginner?
First, to install qmail/vpopmail, www.shupp.org/toaster And then, if you like, there are many mailinglist and websites to find for information. But I assure you if you install qmail, you won't need anything, because you will forget you have a MTA installed and working.
Where are good sites with accurate documentations and how-tos? I just saw http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html, which had some nice information, though it seemed a bit old (they were talking about the situation in 2001).
Yes, this is the "strange" Dan Bernstein site: the beginning of all, but shupp.org wil be definitive for you. It's easier than done. Other, www.inter7.com, and much more. I must say pop mail server was the only thing makes me use qmail, because the typical "popper" is definitely bad (in my opinion, anyway). After that, all my servers intallations, after having sendmail and postfix and deleted it them, all customers phoned and saying surprised: "Why mail goes now so faster and so good, have you changed anything?" And I don't lie. Every time I did, people praised the new service. And I can say they have been many times. Cheers, Alejandro.
-- Sandy
List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 20:37 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Ideally it would be great if someone had worked with both programs and could compare how much effort it took to reach the same result. i've worked with both and more programs, as I said before. That should give you a good basis to remember some circumstances where something was very easy to configure in one product and much more difficult in another. That is what I am looking for, the gotchas that you encounter when you start to learn a program.
Sorry but I don't understand much of your words... sorry! My English comprehension is bad sometimes...
Don't worry, many of the posters here don't use English as their first language. I don't either. What I meant is if you know a how-to where some of the problems are described that Qmail beginners will probably experience. For example: When you only define a relay domain in relay_domains in Postfix, no recipient validation is done, since the relay_recipient_maps parameter is empty. Of course, the documentations tells you to set up relay_recipient_maps, but as a beginner you might forget to do so.
release. That is not important. I assure you I have used Postfix and I missed mails, because of smtp deliveries if some cases. However that thing never happened with qmail, independently the type of delivery, domain existance or not, etc. That is also what I am looking for. Can you remember under what circumstances it happened and how long ago (which Postfix version)?
Uf... I'll try to explain as good as possible in my bad English. As smtp local server, I tried to send mails and none of them reached its target; qmail does: it sends any mail I want it does, even with "fake" accounts, with my regular MUA.
Did you find out the reason? Postfix logs everything, so you should be able to find the cause of the problem. The only situation where I definitely lost a mail was, when I severely misconfigured my machine: I send the mail to a nonexisting recipient address. Okay, so Postfix tries to bounce the mail back to the sender address. Unfortunately, I also used a nonexisting sender address. In that case, Postfix sends the undeliverable mail to the 2bounce recipient (postmaster). Well, you might guess it, postmaster wasn't set to a valid address either. (^-^) The result was, that Postfix finally deleted the undeliverable mail out of the queue. So it took some real effort to lose the mail. That was in the very beginning, when I started to learn about Postfix and send a few testmails. At least I could reconstruct what happened in the log.
Grin! If Postfix has (copied) all those features you like I don't need to learn Qmail. (^-^)
Ha, ha, ha... sharp!
Of course, why would I spend so much time just to do things a different way? If I don't gain something I don't have yet, it is not worth the effort.
Uh, which one? The only one I can remember was a TLS problem for Postfix 2.1. At that time Postfix itself had no own TLS implementation, so the support was added with a 3rd party patch. That was also origin of the security bug.
Sorry, I can't remember: my memory is not as good as for remembering every issue with all programs I don't use... But I can recall several holes.
Since I do use Postfix I do monitor the security lists closely, and I can't recall any security exploit for Postfix aside of the mentioned third-party patch.
That is exactly my point. I like to learn new things, but I also like to know what I am about to start, especially when I decide to learn a new MTA. A good start is important. What mailinglist/website would you recommend for a QMail beginner?
First, to install qmail/vpopmail, www.shupp.org/toaster And then, if you like, there are many mailinglist and websites to find for information. But I assure you if you install qmail, you won't need anything, because you will forget you have a MTA installed and working.
Where are good sites with accurate documentations and how-tos? I just saw http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html, which had some nice information, though it seemed a bit old (they were talking about the situation in 2001).
Yes, this is the "strange" Dan Bernstein site: the beginning of all, but shupp.org wil be definitive for you. It's easier than done. Other, www.inter7.com, and much more.
I'll take a look at them. As it happens, I just read a request for help in the German opensuse list. He is looking for a mailing list on Qmail. Can you recommend one for him? For the moment, I refered him to http://www.mail-archive.com/toaster@shupp.org/info.html. He is trying to find out how to add a custom header (x-original-recipient) to each mail. I know how to do this in Postfix, but not with QMail.
I must say pop mail server was the only thing makes me use qmail, because the typical "popper" is definitely bad (in my opinion, anyway). After that, all my servers intallations, after having sendmail and postfix and deleted it them, all customers phoned and saying surprised: "Why mail goes now so faster and so good, have you changed anything?" And I don't lie. Every time I did, people praised the new service. And I can say they have been many times.
I don't use POP3, I am very happy with Cyrus (IMAP). So mail is passed from Postfix to Cyrus. The resource usage by Postfix on the Server is negligible, the deciding factor on resource consumption is always the imap server (in my case Cyrus). -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 22:05 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Hudibras wrote:
El vie, 29-06-2007 a las 20:37 +0200, Sandy Drobic escribió:
Sorry but I don't understand much of your words... sorry! My English comprehension is bad sometimes...
Don't worry, many of the posters here don't use English as their first language. I don't either. What I meant is if you know a how-to where some of the problems are described that Qmail beginners will probably experience.
Thank you for your kindness. No. qmail beginners often experience problems. Indeed. qmail is much more simple than this.
For example: When you only define a relay domain in relay_domains in Postfix, no recipient validation is done, since the relay_recipient_maps parameter is empty. Of course, the documentations tells you to set up relay_recipient_maps, but as a beginner you might forget to do so.
qmail treats all domains included in a simple text file as locals, so *only* these domains can relay. I insist on it: qmail is much more simple and easy than all of that options in sendmail or postfix. I hope this will be a true explanation of your question...
release. That is not important. I assure you I have used Postfix and I missed mails, because of smtp deliveries if some cases. However that thing never happened with qmail, independently the type of delivery, domain existance or not, etc. That is also what I am looking for. Can you remember under what circumstances it happened and how long ago (which Postfix version)?
Uf... I'll try to explain as good as possible in my bad English. As smtp local server, I tried to send mails and none of them reached its target; qmail does: it sends any mail I want it does, even with "fake" accounts, with my regular MUA.
Did you find out the reason? Postfix logs everything, so you should be able to find the cause of the problem.
No. I didn't find anything: the only real thing is that all those messages were missed forever.
The only situation where I definitely lost a mail was, when I severely misconfigured my machine: I send the mail to a nonexisting recipient address. Okay, so Postfix tries to bounce the mail back to the sender address. Unfortunately, I also used a nonexisting sender address. In that case, Postfix sends the undeliverable mail to the 2bounce recipient (postmaster). Well, you might guess it, postmaster wasn't set to a valid address either. (^-^)
No. Look. In the worst circumstances, qmail never missed a message, even though it was a very crazy mail. I can always retrieve that, deleted from queue, etc. qmail always send a *copy* of the message, and deletes it only if message has been successed in the counterpart.
The result was, that Postfix finally deleted the undeliverable mail out of the queue. So it took some real effort to lose the mail. That was in the very beginning, when I started to learn about Postfix and send a few testmails. At least I could reconstruct what happened in the log.
Grin! If Postfix has (copied) all those features you like I don't need to learn Qmail. (^-^)
Ha, ha, ha... sharp!
Of course, why would I spend so much time just to do things a different way? If I don't gain something I don't have yet, it is not worth the effort.
Uh, which one? The only one I can remember was a TLS problem for Postfix 2.1. At that time Postfix itself had no own TLS implementation, so the support was added with a 3rd party patch. That was also origin of the security bug.
Sorry, I can't remember: my memory is not as good as for remembering every issue with all programs I don't use... But I can recall several holes.
Since I do use Postfix I do monitor the security lists closely, and I can't recall any security exploit for Postfix aside of the mentioned third-party patch.
That is exactly my point. I like to learn new things, but I also like to know what I am about to start, especially when I decide to learn a new MTA. A good start is important. What mailinglist/website would you recommend for a QMail beginner?
First, to install qmail/vpopmail, www.shupp.org/toaster And then, if you like, there are many mailinglist and websites to find for information. But I assure you if you install qmail, you won't need anything, because you will forget you have a MTA installed and working.
Where are good sites with accurate documentations and how-tos? I just saw http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html, which had some nice information, though it seemed a bit old (they were talking about the situation in 2001).
Yes, this is the "strange" Dan Bernstein site: the beginning of all, but shupp.org wil be definitive for you. It's easier than done. Other, www.inter7.com, and much more.
I'll take a look at them. As it happens, I just read a request for help in the German opensuse list. He is looking for a mailing list on Qmail. Can you recommend one for him? For the moment, I refered him to http://www.mail-archive.com/toaster@shupp.org/info.html.
He is trying to find out how to add a custom header (x-original-recipient) to each mail. I know how to do this in Postfix, but not with QMail.
I must say pop mail server was the only thing makes me use qmail, because the typical "popper" is definitely bad (in my opinion, anyway). After that, all my servers intallations, after having sendmail and postfix and deleted it them, all customers phoned and saying surprised: "Why mail goes now so faster and so good, have you changed anything?" And I don't lie. Every time I did, people praised the new service. And I can say they have been many times.
I don't use POP3, I am very happy with Cyrus (IMAP). So mail is passed from Postfix to Cyrus. The resource usage by Postfix on the Server is negligible, the deciding factor on resource consumption is always the imap server (in my case Cyrus).
Yes. I do use imap too (in fact, courier-imap); but I can do pop3 and imap at the same time with qmail; only the MUA configuration and preferences makes the personal choice. It's the thing I can tell you. My English level is not as good as a discussion... And I want to repeat: all customers sang aleluyas when they noticed mail service was *really working* and was much faster and reliable than before. I was really tired with qpopper and that really annoying configuration of boxes, alltogether in a single file. This is prehistoric! I installed qmail and life of customers became bright back. All my servers installed are still there!!! From 2001... till now. Working everyday; maybe only updated the imap server, or the webmail (from qmailadmin to Squirrel, for instance), but any more. The main qmail server is still working, with a deal of charge from nearly 1000 enterprises or more around the world. For qmail the only limit is hardware, not the service itself. Cheers, Alejandro.
-- Sandy
List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hudibras wrote:
For example: When you only define a relay domain in relay_domains in Postfix, no recipient validation is done, since the relay_recipient_maps parameter is empty. Of course, the documentations tells you to set up relay_recipient_maps, but as a beginner you might forget to do so.
qmail treats all domains included in a simple text file as locals, so *only* these domains can relay. I insist on it: qmail is much more simple and easy than all of that options in sendmail or postfix. I hope this will be a true explanation of your question...
Uh, probably not. In Postfix you set up a domain as a relay_domain whent the end destination is not on the Postfix server itself. It will be relayed to a backend server. That is the case when you have an Exchange or Domino server and Postfix is the mailgateway. The "Gotcha" is, that without relay_recipient_maps Postfix will accept all mails for that domain, it doesn't know which recipient addresses are valid or not. That is the function of the relay_recipient_maps. It tells Postfix which addresses are valid recipients for the relay_domains. What happens without this can be seen here: # host -t mx sony.com sony.com mail is handled by 10 mail.global.sprint.com. Let's try: # telnet mail.global.sprint.com 25 Trying 65.55.251.22... Connected to mail.global.sprint.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mail157-blu.bigfish.com ESMTP Postfix EGGS and Butter ehlo japantest.homelinux.com 250-mail157-blu.bigfish.com 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 150000000 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS 250 8BITMIME mail from:<mailadmin@japantest.homelinux.com> 250 Ok rcpt to:<does-not-exist-never-did-either@sony.com> 250 Ok rset 250 Ok quit 221 Bye Connection closed by foreign host. Happy backscatter...
Did you find out the reason? Postfix logs everything, so you should be able to find the cause of the problem.
No. I didn't find anything: the only real thing is that all those messages were missed forever.
Strange.
The only situation where I definitely lost a mail was, when I severely misconfigured my machine: I send the mail to a nonexisting recipient address. Okay, so Postfix tries to bounce the mail back to the sender address. Unfortunately, I also used a nonexisting sender address. In that case, Postfix sends the undeliverable mail to the 2bounce recipient (postmaster). Well, you might guess it, postmaster wasn't set to a valid address either. (^-^)
No. Look. In the worst circumstances, qmail never missed a message, even though it was a very crazy mail. I can always retrieve that, deleted from queue, etc. qmail always send a *copy* of the message, and deletes it only if message has been successed in the counterpart.
So what happens is a mail CAN'T be delivered as in the case I described? recipient invalid, sender invalid, postmaster invalid? Does Qmail put the mail in a special undeliverable folder or does it stay in the queue forever?
Where are good sites with accurate documentations and how-tos? I just saw http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html, which had some nice information, though it seemed a bit old (they were talking about the situation in 2001). Yes, this is the "strange" Dan Bernstein site: the beginning of all, but shupp.org wil be definitive for you. It's easier than done. Other, www.inter7.com, and much more. I'll take a look at them. As it happens, I just read a request for help in the German opensuse list. He is looking for a mailing list on Qmail. Can you recommend one for him? For the moment, I refered him to http://www.mail-archive.com/toaster@shupp.org/info.html.
He is trying to find out how to add a custom header (x-original-recipient) to each mail. I know how to do this in Postfix, but not with QMail.
Do you have a hint how to do that?
Yes. I do use imap too (in fact, courier-imap); but I can do pop3 and imap at the same time with qmail; only the MUA configuration and preferences makes the personal choice. It's the thing I can tell you. My
Postfix doesn't do imap or pop3, that is the job of the pop3 or imap server. In my case Cyrus (it does pop3 and imap as well), in your case Courier. Both work well.
English level is not as good as a discussion...
And I want to repeat: all customers sang aleluyas when they noticed mail service was *really working* and was much faster and reliable than before. I was really tired with qpopper and that really annoying configuration of boxes, alltogether in a single file. This is prehistoric! I installed qmail and life of customers became bright back. All my servers installed are still there!!! From 2001... till now.
Not bad. I have to change the configuration because Suse does not offer updates for more than 2 years for the Opensuse distribution. In fact, I will have to update soon. Suse 10.0 will only be supported for a few more month now. The MTA portion of installation does not change, though. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hudibras wrote:
Postfix and Exim are two great mail servers, but I still do prefer qmail, because (and it's only my opinion) is much better in most cases. qmail version is the same from 1998, and it does not need any more; but there are many people around helping and making "add-ons", making it more powerful and never, never, never has a security hole or anything like these. However, sendmail or postfix really have holes... or is that not true?
Er, sendmail has a long history of exploits, postfix none. FWIW postfix was designed as a secure, high performance drop-in replacement for sendmail, so things like the "sendmail" compatibility command work as expected. We were a sendmail shop for years, and looked at other MTAs, always looking for the optimum setup. We looked at qmail, and found a few things we didn't like. It was so starkly different from sendmail that we'd have a lot of work to do to adapt our scripts etc to it, and there would be a learning curve for our admins. Also there were some technical details we didn't like - mail queue files were referenced by inode number, so if we ever had to recover from a disaster, guess what? different inode numbers, and we're hosed. Also, we had thousands of aliases and redirects which change daily - postfix and sendmail easily handle this, but qmail seemed a bit more awkward to configure. In any case, we settled on postfix, and found it to be essentially sendmail on steroids for the most part - much lower demand on system resources, very flexible and fast, and no more security alerts. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sloan wrote:
We were a sendmail shop for years, and looked at other MTAs, always looking for the optimum setup. We looked at qmail, and found a few things we didn't like. It was so starkly different from sendmail that we'd have a lot of work to do to adapt our scripts etc to it, and there would be a learning curve for our admins. Also there were some technical
When I started learning about MTAs I tried to understand Sendmail and gave up when even the documentation and how-tos sounded like so much gibberish to me. Postfix on the other hand is documented very accurately. How long did it take you to get a grip on the basics of QMail?
details we didn't like - mail queue files were referenced by inode number, so if we ever had to recover from a disaster, guess what? different inode numbers, and we're hosed. Also, we had thousands of aliases and redirects which change daily - postfix and sendmail easily handle this, but qmail seemed a bit more awkward to configure.
How were the lookups done, LDAP/SQL or flat files? What were the symptoms?
In any case, we settled on postfix, and found it to be essentially sendmail on steroids for the most part - much lower demand on system resources, very flexible and fast, and no more security alerts.
Yes, Postfix as well as QMail were developed out of need for secure MTAs, as I just read on http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html. Wietse does take care not to introduce features that waste resources. Probably one of the reasons whey Suse changed to Postfix as the default MTA. Thanks for the view of a (previous) Sendmail user. Did you have a look at Exim as well? When I took a casual look at their documentation it seemed quite nice. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sandy Drobic wrote:
When I started learning about MTAs I tried to understand Sendmail and gave up when even the documentation and how-tos sounded like so much gibberish to me. Postfix on the other hand is documented very accurately. How long did it take you to get a grip on the basics of QMail?
Oh, our "look" at qmail was much more high level, we didn't invest the time required to get a grip on it. It was research, and then saying for each of our main functions "OK, we do this in sendmail, how can we accomplish the same thing in qmail?"
details we didn't like - mail queue files were referenced by inode number, so if we ever had to recover from a disaster, guess what? different inode numbers, and we're hosed. Also, we had thousands of aliases and redirects which change daily - postfix and sendmail easily handle this, but qmail seemed a bit more awkward to configure.
How were the lookups done, LDAP/SQL or flat files? What were the symptoms?
Lookups are done from local db files for optimum speed. The files are updated several times a day with automated scripts, but we need our mail gateways to be blazing fast, so the potential delay in waiting for ldap response from a remote lotus notes server running on windoze was unacceptable to us. Now that notes is being moved off of windoze and onto a p-series running AIX we may revisit that, but the current system works well.
Yes, Postfix as well as QMail were developed out of need for secure MTAs, as I just read on http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html. Wietse does take care not to introduce features that waste resources. Probably one of the reasons whey Suse changed to Postfix as the default MTA.
Thanks for the view of a (previous) Sendmail user. Did you have a look at Exim as well? When I took a casual look at their documentation it seemed quite nice.
We looked at exim, and it seemed to have some nice features - but we need to get the maximum mail throughput and minimum latency possib;e, and postfix was far and away the performance winner. BTW in researching benchmark results, I was unable to find any evidence of qmail's purported performance advantages over sendmail. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sloan wrote:
Sandy Drobic wrote:
When I started learning about MTAs I tried to understand Sendmail and gave up when even the documentation and how-tos sounded like so much gibberish to me. Postfix on the other hand is documented very accurately. How long did it take you to get a grip on the basics of QMail?
Oh, our "look" at qmail was much more high level, we didn't invest the time required to get a grip on it. It was research, and then saying for each of our main functions "OK, we do this in sendmail, how can we accomplish the same thing in qmail?"
Nice. I wish I had the time to do that as well. (^-^) What were the features that differed the most in implementation or performance?
details we didn't like - mail queue files were referenced by inode number, so if we ever had to recover from a disaster, guess what? different inode numbers, and we're hosed. Also, we had thousands of aliases and redirects which change daily - postfix and sendmail easily handle this, but qmail seemed a bit more awkward to configure.
How were the lookups done, LDAP/SQL or flat files? What were the symptoms?
Lookups are done from local db files for optimum speed. The files are updated several times a day with automated scripts, but we need our mail gateways to be blazing fast, so the potential delay in waiting for ldap response from a remote lotus notes server running on windoze was unacceptable to us. Now that notes is being moved off of windoze and onto a p-series running AIX we may revisit that, but the current system works well.
Our domino servers are still running on windows. I am also using a script to extract all valid recipients with ldap lookups. Even for a relative low volume site as our company I decided to stay with the script instead of direct ldap lookups. I didn't have a reason yet to stress test the ldap server, and with postfix in front of the domino servers I probably never will.
Yes, Postfix as well as QMail were developed out of need for secure MTAs, as I just read on http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html. Wietse does take care not to introduce features that waste resources. Probably one of the reasons whey Suse changed to Postfix as the default MTA.
Thanks for the view of a (previous) Sendmail user. Did you have a look at Exim as well? When I took a casual look at their documentation it seemed quite nice.
We looked at exim, and it seemed to have some nice features - but we need to get the maximum mail throughput and minimum latency possib;e, and postfix was far and away the performance winner. BTW in researching benchmark results, I was unable to find any evidence of qmail's purported performance advantages over sendmail.
I would also like to see some test results done on the same hardware and the same base of testmails. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sandy Drobic wrote:
What were the features that differed the most in implementation or performance?
Our look at qmail was some years ago so it's getting a bit fuzzy now. ISTR that qmail seemed to be full of gratuitous differences in the interface with no tangible benefit. I won't deny that it seemed smaller and cleaner than sendmail, but the message store by inode was one deal breaker, as I mentioned. Also ISTR that we would have needed thousands of alias files to do what we were doing in sendmail.
I would also like to see some test results done on the same hardware and the same base of testmails.
Well, from memory (this was several years ago) we had 2 identical linux test machines, rather modest, hp desktop class hardware as I remember. One was running sendmail, the other postfix, default configs. We fed them both with a mail spool of a few thousand messages and the difference was significant. The postfix box finished processing and delivering the messages in a few minutes. At this point, the sendmail box was thrashing, with a load average around 40. It finally finished about half an hour later. That one test settled the postfix-vs-sendmail debate for me. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sloan wrote:
Sandy Drobic wrote:
What were the features that differed the most in implementation or performance?
Our look at qmail was some years ago so it's getting a bit fuzzy now. ISTR that qmail seemed to be full of gratuitous differences in the interface with no tangible benefit. I won't deny that it seemed smaller and cleaner than sendmail, but the message store by inode was one deal breaker, as I mentioned. Also ISTR that we would have needed thousands of alias files to do what we were doing in sendmail.
Agreed, that is a bit awkward if you need to be able to scale very high.
I would also like to see some test results done on the same hardware and the same base of testmails.
Well, from memory (this was several years ago) we had 2 identical linux test machines, rather modest, hp desktop class hardware as I remember. One was running sendmail, the other postfix, default configs. We fed them both with a mail spool of a few thousand messages and the difference was significant. The postfix box finished processing and delivering the messages in a few minutes. At this point, the sendmail box was thrashing, with a load average around 40. It finally finished about half an hour later.
That one test settled the postfix-vs-sendmail debate for me.
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults? Transfer over SMTP is indeed blazing fast with Postfix. I had to switch off my main server over night once. The queue on the replacement drained almost immediately (a few hundred mails only) when the primary came online again. Although the mails then sat in the active queue of the primary waiting to be scanned by amavisd-new. (^-^) -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Sloan wrote:
Well, from memory (this was several years ago) we had 2 identical linux test machines, rather modest, hp desktop class hardware as I remember. One was running sendmail, the other postfix, default configs. We fed them both with a mail spool of a few thousand messages and the difference was significant. The postfix box finished processing and delivering the messages in a few minutes. At this point, the sendmail box was thrashing, with a load average around 40. It finally finished about half an hour later.
That one test settled the postfix-vs-sendmail debate for me.
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults?
Actually that would be the linux vendor - IOW it was straight, "out of the box" default configs. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sloan wrote:
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Sloan wrote:
Well, from memory (this was several years ago) we had 2 identical linux test machines, rather modest, hp desktop class hardware as I remember. One was running sendmail, the other postfix, default configs. We fed them both with a mail spool of a few thousand messages and the difference was significant. The postfix box finished processing and delivering the messages in a few minutes. At this point, the sendmail box was thrashing, with a load average around 40. It finally finished about half an hour later.
That one test settled the postfix-vs-sendmail debate for me.
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults?
Actually that would be the linux vendor - IOW it was straight, "out of the box" default configs.
Bleah, Suse configures Postfix with two smtpd processes as default. It's a nullclient, and the limits are set accordingly. (^-^) -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Sloan wrote:
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Sloan wrote:
Well, from memory (this was several years ago) we had 2 identical linux test machines, rather modest, hp desktop class hardware as I remember. One was running sendmail, the other postfix, default configs. We fed them both with a mail spool of a few thousand messages and the difference was significant. The postfix box finished processing and delivering the messages in a few minutes. At this point, the sendmail box was thrashing, with a load average around 40. It finally finished about half an hour later.
That one test settled the postfix-vs-sendmail debate for me.
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults?
Actually that would be the linux vendor - IOW it was straight, "out of the box" default configs.
Bleah, Suse configures Postfix with two smtpd processes as default. It's a nullclient, and the limits are set accordingly. (^-^)
Are you sure? The postfix config on my 10.2 workstation doesn't seem to indicate such a limit, and I don't recall changing anything. In any case, the max number of smtp processes is easy to change. BTW the test boxes were redhat or fedora IIRC - we used to be a redhat shop back in the day, and redhat had a handy "config-mta" utility to switch among installed MTAs. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sloan wrote:
Sandy Drobic wrote:
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults?
Actually that would be the linux vendor - IOW it was straight, "out of the box" default configs.
Bleah, Suse configures Postfix with two smtpd processes as default. It's a nullclient, and the limits are set accordingly. (^-^)
Are you sure? The postfix config on my 10.2 workstation doesn't seem to indicate such a limit, and I don't recall changing anything. In any case, the max number of smtp processes is easy to change.
I don't have a current 10.2 configured at hand. It was the case with 9.2, though you are right, it is easy to discover and change.
BTW the test boxes were redhat or fedora IIRC - we used to be a redhat shop back in the day, and redhat had a handy "config-mta" utility to switch among installed MTAs.
The last time I worked with redhat was version 7.1 or 7.2. No, I still have one legacy 9.0 running on an ancient Pentium II-233. It even has Sendmail as MTA. Since it is only running to send status mails I didn't change it to Postfix. That box will soon be retired and replaced with a virtual machine. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Bleah, Suse configures Postfix with two smtpd processes as default. It's a nullclient, and the limits are set accordingly. (^-^) As of 10.2, smtp is now set to 10, though smtps is still set to 2. IIRC, this changed at 10.2, I believe 10.1 was still 2.
-- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871 running openSUSE 10.2 x86_64 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-06-29 at 22:15 +0200, Sandy Drobic wrote:
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults? Transfer over SMTP is indeed blazing fast with Postfix. I had to switch off my main server over night once. The queue on the replacement drained almost immediately (a few hundred mails only) when the primary came online again. Although the mails then sat in the active queue of the primary waiting to be scanned by amavisd-new. (^-^)
For a time, I had to reuse my old computer to retrieve suse list mail (suse 7.3, 32 MB ram, refurbished with postfix). Mail delivery went so slow that it tried to bounce! The amavis script took more than half an hour to process some emails and postfix decided to bounce back, thinking it had stalled. The problem was that the system was starting a new instance or child amavis (or amvis.new, I don't remember), using swap memory for each and slowing the system more and more. The solution was, of course, to use a queue of one, so that postfix didn't feed amavis with the nest email till it had finished with the previous one, so that there were only one amavis child in memory and running. The processing time went down to under a minute per mail :-) Interesting lesson! Even on a fast server, the number of amavis childs must be limited to a sensible value. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGhjghtTMYHG2NR9URAs2pAKCJGUntqIsdbktiwnIvE1GBpFTGcQCaAhon QHgaz3xAiebCzrfAKLKHs0o= =Rlgw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Friday 2007-06-29 at 22:15 +0200, Sandy Drobic wrote:
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults? Transfer over SMTP is indeed blazing fast with Postfix. I had to switch off my main server over night once. The queue on the replacement drained almost immediately (a few hundred mails only) when the primary came online again. Although the mails then sat in the active queue of the primary waiting to be scanned by amavisd-new. (^-^)
For a time, I had to reuse my old computer to retrieve suse list mail (suse 7.3, 32 MB ram, refurbished with postfix). Mail delivery went so slow that it tried to bounce! The amavis script took more than half an hour to process some emails and postfix decided to bounce back, thinking it had stalled.
32 MB is indeed rather small for ram. (^-^) Your system was bouncing because the destination hop (content_filter) timed out. If your maximal_queue_lifetime was set sufficiently low, you could indeed end up bouncing the mails that could not be processed in time.
The problem was that the system was starting a new instance or child amavis (or amvis.new, I don't remember), using swap memory for each and slowing the system more and more. The solution was, of course, to use a queue of one, so that postfix didn't feed amavis with the nest email till it had finished with the previous one, so that there were only one amavis child in memory and running. The processing time went down to under a minute per mail :-)
Interesting lesson! Even on a fast server, the number of amavis childs must be limited to a sensible value.
Of course. Even the fastest computer can be flooded with more mail than he can scan in realtime. On my old server here at home (was build around the end of the last century) I use amavisd-new as a pre-queue proxy-filter. So I have to restrict the number of concurrent connections to 6. Any more and I might run out of RAM (my server only has 512 MB and has a few more daemons running aside of Postfix). -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-06-30 at 13:28 +0200, Sandy Drobic wrote:
32 MB is indeed rather small for ram. (^-^)
Indeed! Its a plain pentium /one/, with 32Mb and perhaps 1 GiB swap <:-) The swap is so big because the yast/you of the time (7.3) has a memory hole, so it was needed. Nowdays I use that machine for tests or emergencies.
Your system was bouncing because the destination hop (content_filter) timed out. If your maximal_queue_lifetime was set sufficiently low, you could indeed end up bouncing the mails that could not be processed in time.
Exactly. They timed out at 30 minutes, I think. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGhkO4tTMYHG2NR9URAu/uAJ9uWsNpy2Bt1U0Q77rbLmD8Ea9o9gCfRb34 9KcJgJYjpg6VR1iA87acMic= =8JwC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Saturday 2007-06-30 at 13:28 +0200, Sandy Drobic wrote:
32 MB is indeed rather small for ram. (^-^)
Indeed!
Its a plain pentium /one/, with 32Mb and perhaps 1 GiB swap <:-)
The swap is so big because the yast/you of the time (7.3) has a memory hole, so it was needed. Nowdays I use that machine for tests or emergencies.
Your system was bouncing because the destination hop (content_filter) timed out. If your maximal_queue_lifetime was set sufficiently low, you could indeed end up bouncing the mails that could not be processed in time.
Exactly.
They timed out at 30 minutes, I think.
Nope, When Postfix has accepted a mail its already in your queue. At that point the maximal_queue_lifetime starts. # postconf maximal_queue_lifetime maximal_queue_lifetime = 5d In that time, the mails that can not be scanned are merely deferred. After the maximal_queue_lifetime the mails will be bounced as undeliverable. If delay_warning_time is set though, Postfix may send delivery status notifications (DSN) and warn the sender that a mail could not be sent yet. This only applies to more recent versions of Postfix that support DSN (starting from version 2.3). In the meantime, your log will fill with timeouts. There are a lot of options to set timeouts that fit your situation: postconf -d| grep timeout connection_cache_protocol_timeout = 5s daemon_timeout = 18000s ipc_timeout = 3600s lmtp_connect_timeout = 0s lmtp_data_done_timeout = 600s lmtp_data_init_timeout = 120s lmtp_data_xfer_timeout = 180s lmtp_lhlo_timeout = 300s lmtp_mail_timeout = 300s lmtp_quit_timeout = 300s lmtp_rcpt_timeout = 300s lmtp_rset_timeout = 20s lmtp_starttls_timeout = 300s lmtp_tls_session_cache_timeout = 3600s lmtp_xforward_timeout = 300s milter_command_timeout = 30s milter_connect_timeout = 30s milter_content_timeout = 300s qmqpd_timeout = 300s smtp_connect_timeout = 30s smtp_data_done_timeout = 600s smtp_data_init_timeout = 120s smtp_data_xfer_timeout = 180s smtp_helo_timeout = 300s smtp_mail_timeout = 300s smtp_quit_timeout = 300s smtp_rcpt_timeout = 300s smtp_rset_timeout = 20s smtp_starttls_timeout = 300s smtp_tls_session_cache_timeout = 3600s smtp_xforward_timeout = 300s smtpd_policy_service_timeout = 100s smtpd_proxy_timeout = 100s smtpd_starttls_timeout = 300s smtpd_timeout = 300s smtpd_tls_session_cache_timeout = 3600s trigger_timeout = 10s -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2007-06-30 at 14:37 +0200, Sandy Drobic wrote:
They timed out at 30 minutes, I think.
Nope, When Postfix has accepted a mail its already in your queue. At that point the maximal_queue_lifetime starts.
# postconf maximal_queue_lifetime maximal_queue_lifetime = 5d
Well, that was perhaps two years ago, so I don't remember what limit did I hit, but I do remember postfix complaining about 30 minutes of something being sxceeded without response from the filter, and doing something about it, which I don't remember now what it was exactly. Perhaps bounce to the postmaster, or tell the postmaster, or something - what I remember is my nerves straining! O:-)
In that time, the mails that can not be scanned are merely deferred. After the maximal_queue_lifetime the mails will be bounced as undeliverable. If delay_warning_time is set though, Postfix may send delivery status notifications (DSN) and warn the sender that a mail could not be sent yet. This only applies to more recent versions of Postfix that support DSN (starting from version 2.3).
No, it wasn't that recent.
In the meantime, your log will fill with timeouts. There are a lot of options to set timeouts that fit your situation:
No need, I solved it throtlling the queue to one mail at a time, fed to amavis. And I only use it for emergencies nowdays. But nice to have this list handy, I'll keep it. :-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGh49ftTMYHG2NR9URAiLYAKCSxoHJHbuFIdJuAEKFVVCid6FqoACfeyvd QRHPzc5LbAB7A2x1rkbvVNA= =/SIL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Saturday 2007-06-30 at 14:37 +0200, Sandy Drobic wrote:
They timed out at 30 minutes, I think. Nope, When Postfix has accepted a mail its already in your queue. At that point the maximal_queue_lifetime starts.
# postconf maximal_queue_lifetime maximal_queue_lifetime = 5d
Well, that was perhaps two years ago, so I don't remember what limit did I hit, but I do remember postfix complaining about 30 minutes of something being sxceeded without response from the filter, and doing something about it, which I don't remember now what it was exactly. Perhaps bounce to the postmaster, or tell the postmaster, or something - what I remember is my nerves straining! O:-)
If you still have the config then check what notify_classes were set to.
In the meantime, your log will fill with timeouts. There are a lot of options to set timeouts that fit your situation:
No need, I solved it throtlling the queue to one mail at a time, fed to amavis. And I only use it for emergencies nowdays.
But nice to have this list handy, I'll keep it. :-)
Development was rather fast in the last two years. Better use the list that applies to your installation: # all timeout parameters of current config postconf | grep timeout # all default timeout parameters postconf -d| grep timeout # parameters you have set manually: postconf -n| grep timeout -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2007-06-29 at 12:43 -0700, Sloan wrote:
Our look at qmail was some years ago so it's getting a bit fuzzy now. ISTR that qmail seemed to be full of gratuitous differences in the interface with no tangible benefit. I won't deny that it seemed smaller and cleaner than sendmail, but the message store by inode was one deal breaker, as I mentioned. Also ISTR that we would have needed thousands of alias files to do what we were doing in sendmail.
If I'm not mistaken, in postfix the queue files are also related to the inodes and can not be moved. After a restore and before starting the postfix server you need to run ... I forgot the name, to scan the queues and change the filenames appropriately. It must be explained somewhere in the faq. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGhjY9tTMYHG2NR9URAl8tAJ9emIfL+fahqA2QuoaReJYkp6bRhwCdHmzd lkK1l5fCnI5njEif18+SyFM= =TUgY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Friday 2007-06-29 at 12:43 -0700, Sloan wrote:
Our look at qmail was some years ago so it's getting a bit fuzzy now. ISTR that qmail seemed to be full of gratuitous differences in the interface with no tangible benefit. I won't deny that it seemed smaller and cleaner than sendmail, but the message store by inode was one deal breaker, as I mentioned. Also ISTR that we would have needed thousands of alias files to do what we were doing in sendmail.
If I'm not mistaken, in postfix the queue files are also related to the inodes and can not be moved. After a restore and before starting the postfix server you need to run ... I forgot the name, to scan the queues and change the filenames appropriately. It must be explained somewhere in the faq.
You are correct. As long as the queue files do not leave the file sysem (aka change their inode number) you don't need to do anything. If you do restore the raw queue files from a backup you need to run "postsuper -s". -s Structure check and structure repair. This should be done once before Postfix startup. · Rename files whose name does not match the mes- sage file inode number. This operation is nec- essary after restoring a mail queue from a dif- ferent machine, or from backup media. · Move queue files that are in the wrong place in the file system hierarchy and remove subdirec- tories that are no longer needed. File posi- tion rearrangements are necessary after a change in the hash_queue_names and/or hash_queue_depth configuration parameters. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Friday 2007-06-29 at 12:43 -0700, Sloan wrote:
Our look at qmail was some years ago so it's getting a bit fuzzy now. ISTR that qmail seemed to be full of gratuitous differences in the interface with no tangible benefit. I won't deny that it seemed smaller and cleaner than sendmail, but the message store by inode was one deal breaker, as I mentioned. Also ISTR that we would have needed thousands of alias files to do what we were doing in sendmail.
If I'm not mistaken, in postfix the queue files are also related to the inodes and can not be moved. After a restore and before starting the postfix server you need to run ... I forgot the name, to scan the queues and change the filenames appropriately. It must be explained somewhere in the faq.
Ah yes - the postsuper utility - that'ss saved me lots of work on several occasions. Does anyone know if there's some equivalent qmail utility? Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Currently i m using postfix as my mail server. but i m having problem when i have to add additionl domain to my server. I can't get the same username for 2 domains like hans@a.com and hans@b.com. hans@a.com and hans@b.com will be treated as the same user by Postfix. And there is no interface for me to admin virtual domain in postfix and as i heard it's easy to do it with qmail since qmail has a lot of interface to admin like qadmin, vpopmail etc. I m not an expert in mail server, sorry i wasn't try to compare between postfix and qmail. I really need an interface for postfix to admin, and if there is no interface for postfix, i thought i will be easier for me to do it with qmail rgds hans Sandy Drobic wrote:
Hans Linux wrote:
please enlight me with this issue : As far as i know, Postfix can handle virtual domain, but it can not has the same username for virtual doman. For example I have 2 domain on my server : - domain www.a.com and - domain www.b.com
If i have a user named 'hans', and hans is with a.com domain, then i'll have hans@a.com. If b.com domain has a user also name hans, then Postfix will not be able to see there are 2 hans, but only 1 hans. Thus, i can not have hans@b.com. Am i right?
No. This is true for domains in $mydestination, but not for domains in virtual_mailbox_domains.
On the other hand, qmail will be able to do that. And there are many additional tool for qmail to set that up like vmailmanager, vpopadmin etc, but not postfix.
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.".
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
El lun, 02-07-2007 a las 11:18 +0700, Hans Linux escribió:
Currently i m using postfix as my mail server. but i m having problem when i have to add additionl domain to my server. I can't get the same username for 2 domains like hans@a.com and hans@b.com. hans@a.com and hans@b.com will be treated as the same user by Postfix. And there is no interface for me to admin virtual domain in postfix and as i heard it's easy to do it with qmail since qmail has a lot of interface to admin like qadmin, vpopmail etc.
I m not an expert in mail server, sorry i wasn't try to compare between postfix and qmail. I really need an interface for postfix to admin, and if there is no interface for postfix, i thought i will be easier for me to do it with qmail
Install qmail and then vpopmail. All domains will be in /home/vpopmail/domains/a.com, /home/vpopmail/domains/b.com, and so on, and you will be able to create accounts hans@a.com, hans@b.com, hans@c.com, etc. See shupp.org/toaster. Installation would take you only a while. Then tell me. Cheers, Alejandro.
rgds hans
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Hans Linux wrote:
please enlight me with this issue : As far as i know, Postfix can handle virtual domain, but it can not has the same username for virtual doman. For example I have 2 domain on my server : - domain www.a.com and - domain www.b.com
If i have a user named 'hans', and hans is with a.com domain, then i'll have hans@a.com. If b.com domain has a user also name hans, then Postfix will not be able to see there are 2 hans, but only 1 hans. Thus, i can not have hans@b.com. Am i right?
No. This is true for domains in $mydestination, but not for domains in virtual_mailbox_domains.
On the other hand, qmail will be able to do that. And there are many additional tool for qmail to set that up like vmailmanager, vpopadmin etc, but not postfix.
What problem are you trying to solve? If the question is "can Postfix do that?" the answer is "yes, it can, and a lot more, too". If the question is "Which MTA should I use?" The answer is "Use the one you are able to administer and debug.".
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2007-07-02 at 11:18 +0700, Hans Linux wrote:
Currently i m using postfix as my mail server. but i m having problem when i have to add additionl domain to my server. I can't get the same username for 2 domains like hans@a.com and hans@b.com. hans@a.com and hans@b.com will be treated as the same user by Postfix.
They already told you how to handle this. :-? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGiMZ/tTMYHG2NR9URAohUAJwNRX5//94OsfbtMCYIDq4EGq14YQCcCqWZ sAF/pHXO2ggj5wCsImCusL0= =wMaL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hans Linux wrote:
Currently i m using postfix as my mail server. but i m having problem when i have to add additionl domain to my server. I can't get the same username for 2 domains like hans@a.com and hans@b.com. hans@a.com and hans@b.com will be treated as the same user by Postfix. And there is no interface for me to admin virtual domain in postfix and as i heard it's easy to do it with qmail since qmail has a lot of interface to admin like qadmin, vpopmail etc.
I m not an expert in mail server, sorry i wasn't try to compare between postfix and qmail. I really need an interface for postfix to admin, and if there is no interface for postfix, i thought i will be easier for me to do it with qmail
No interface will ever tell you what the right solution is. It will only help to handle the administration with more comfort. If you need a wellconfigured web interface I would suggest something like Scalix or Kolab. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (9)
-
Anders Johansson -
Carlos E. R. -
Fajar Priyanto -
Hans Linux -
Hudibras -
joe -
Joe Morris (NTM) -
Sandy Drobic -
Sloan