The qpopper list archive ending on 5 Apr 2002
Topics covered in this issue include:
1. Qpopper on Windows
"Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre.Humblet at ieee dot org>
Tue, 02 Apr 2002 09:41:39 -0500
2. Re: Qpopper on Windows
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:59:43 -1000
3. Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:15:20 -0800
4. Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:26:19 -1000
5. Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:56:01 -0500 (EST)
6. Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 18:01:27 -0500 (EST)
7. Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:00:11 -1000
8. Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:19:44 -0800
9. files username.cache under the popdrop directory
PM WONG <pmwong at power25t.hkbu.edu dot hk>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:11:12 +0800 (HKT)
10. auth_user undefined reference...
Daniel Suen <ttdsuen at ln.edu dot hk>
Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:42:10 +0800
11. IP address not being logged
Christina Plummer <chpr at mail.rochester dot edu>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:04:06 -0500
12. Re: IP address not being logged
Ted Cabeen <ted at impulse dot net>
Wed, 03 Apr 2002 09:35:17 -0800
13. qpopper4.0.3 on IRIX 6.2
Mike Peterson <mikep at onet.on dot ca>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:21:00 -0500 (EST)
14. Re: qpopper4.0.3 on IRIX 6.2
peter.allen at moon-light.co dot uk
Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:02:40 +0100
15. Securing POP3 with QPopper
"Michael Caplan" <michael at social-ecology dot org>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:04:04 -0500
16. POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
"Mohamed M. Abbas" <mmabbas at longwood dot edu>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:30:59 -0500 (EST)
17. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:03:42 -0500
18. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
"Mohamed M. Abbas" <mmabbas at longwood dot edu>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:26:42 -0500 (EST)
19. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:42:17 -0500
20. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:04:47 -1000
21. Re: Securing POP3 with QPopper
Ken Hornstein <kenh at cmf.nrl.navy dot mil>
Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:33:15 -0500
22. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Joel Laing <joel at scripps dot edu>
Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:43:03 -0800
23. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:22:38 -1000
24. Re: IP address not being logged
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:50:28 -0800
25. Re: Securing POP3 with QPopper
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:06:44 -1000
26. Qpopper and repeated messages
<eperez at consultant dot com>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:27:42 -0500
27. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Chip Old <fold at bcpl dot net>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:18:42 -0500 (EST)
28. RE: Securing POP3 with QPopper
"Michael Caplan" <michael at social-ecology dot org>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:22:58 -0500
29. Re: Securing POP3 with QPopper
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:14:50 -1000
30. Re: POP3 / QPopper cleaning up the mail spool
"Simon May" <simon at imsl dot es>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:35:41 +0200
31. Re: IP address not being logged
Valter Nordh <valter at che.chalmers dot se>
Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:04:54 +0200
32. Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:49:36 -0500 (EST)
33. Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:42:12 -0500
34. Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:25:58 -0500 (EST)
35. Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
Eric Luyten <Eric.Luyten at vub.ac dot be>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:25:45 +0200 (MET DST)
36. Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
peter.allen at moon-light.co dot uk
Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:55:42 +0100
37. Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:47:26 -0500 (EST)
38. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
"Michael D. Sofka" <sofkam at rpi dot edu>
Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:33:21 -0500
39. Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:46:14 -1000
40. maildir patch for 3.x?
luke <luke at cisdata dot net>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:09:26 -0800 (PST)
41. qpopper-mysql-0.4 - new release
The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:40:44 -0800 (PST)
42. Re: Qpopper and repeated messages
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:45:28 -0800
43. Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:43:43 -0800
44. Qpopper 4.0.4fc3 available
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:11:49 -0800
45. Re: Qpopper and repeated messages
"Erick Perez" <eperez at consultant dot com>
Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:16:31 -0500
46. Re: Qpopper 4.0.4fc3 available
jnemeth at victoria.tc dot ca (John Nemeth)
Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:57:43 -0800
47. Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
Jesus Cea Avion <jcea at argo dot es>
Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:17:01 +0200
48. Re: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
gsh at skima dot is
Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:58:05 +0000
49. Re: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
Gregory Hicks <ghicks at cadence dot com>
Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:25:28 -0800 (PST)
50. Re: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
kkim at telcordia dot com
Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:48:16 -0500
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 09:41:39 -0500
From: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre.Humblet at ieee dot org>
Subject: Qpopper on Windows
A version of qpopper for Windows, as well as precompiled
binaries, is available on
ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/pc/gnuwin32/cygwin/porters/Humblet_Pierre_A/V1.1/
It runs on all Windows platforms on top of the Cygwin
( http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin ) Unix emulation layer.
I would not recommend it for a large production environment,
but it works fine in a home/small group setting.
The patches are minor. It would be nice if they could be
included in the official distribution. I am ready to help
achieve that.
Pierre
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:59:43 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: Qpopper on Windows
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 09:41:39AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> A version of qpopper for Windows, as well as precompiled
> binaries, is available on
> ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/pc/gnuwin32/cygwin/porters/Humblet_Pierre_A/V1.1/
>
> It runs on all Windows platforms on top of the Cygwin
> ( http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin ) Unix emulation layer.
> I would not recommend it for a large production environment,
> but it works fine in a home/small group setting.
That's a very impressive achievement. Thanks! Even though it's
nothing I'm likely to run, I'm sure someone wants that.
-- Clifton
> The patches are minor. It would be nice if they could be
> included in the official distribution. I am ready to help
> achieve that.
>
> Pierre
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:15:20 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
At 9:52 AM -1000 4/1/02, Clifton Royston wrote:
>Some knowledgeable admins have suggested that the flag to disable
>qpopper writing UIDLs back to the file is a performance benefit,
>because it reduces disk I/O (at the cost of CPU) and most modern
>systems are I/O bound not CPU bound. I haven't tried this out, because
>when I make this change I think it means everyone who leaves mail on
>our server would get it all downloaded again. (Then again, maybe
>that's a *good* thing. Heh.)
When UIDs are written into the mail spool they are calculated using a
hash of the message headers and a random component, to ensure
uniqueness. When UIDs aren't written into the spool they need to be
generated the same each time, so there can't be a random element.
Thus, after making the switch pre-existing messages in the spool will
have UIDs that contain a random element, while new messages won't.
So there shouldn't be a problem with downloading old mail again.
However, there is a greater chance of duplicate UIDs, which means
that potentially some messages might not get downloaded (since they
seem to be the same as an earlier message to the client).
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 12:26:19 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 11:15:20AM -0800, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 9:52 AM -1000 4/1/02, Clifton Royston wrote:
> >Some knowledgeable admins have suggested that the flag to disable
> >qpopper writing UIDLs back to the file is a performance benefit,
> >because it reduces disk I/O (at the cost of CPU) and most modern
> >systems are I/O bound not CPU bound. I haven't tried this out, because
> >when I make this change I think it means everyone who leaves mail on
> >our server would get it all downloaded again. (Then again, maybe
> >that's a *good* thing. Heh.)
>
> When UIDs are written into the mail spool they are calculated using a
> hash of the message headers and a random component, to ensure
> uniqueness. When UIDs aren't written into the spool they need to be
> generated the same each time, so there can't be a random element.
> Thus, after making the switch pre-existing messages in the spool will
> have UIDs that contain a random element, while new messages won't.
> So there shouldn't be a problem with downloading old mail again.
Ah, so it continues to use the existing UIDs if present in the spool?
That's very good news. In that case, maybe I can consider doing this
transition.
> However, there is a greater chance of duplicate UIDs, which means
> that potentially some messages might not get downloaded (since they
> seem to be the same as an earlier message to the client).
If the hash is reasonably robust, like an MD5, there should be a
vanishingly small chance of this. There also should never be two
messages with the same message ID, unless there is a problem in the
mail system where they originated; perhaps concatenating a hash of the
total headers and a hash of the message ID alone would reduce the odds
further?
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:56:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Randall Gellens wrote:
> Thus, after making the switch pre-existing messages in the spool will
> have UIDs that contain a random element, while new messages won't.
> So there shouldn't be a problem with downloading old mail again.
The question is what the CPU hit is like.
> However, there is a greater chance of duplicate UIDs, which means
> that potentially some messages might not get downloaded (since they
> seem to be the same as an earlier message to the client).
putting that in context, it was more of a problem with the older,
shorted UIDLs, with current ones it should be unlikely even with a few
thousand messages in the inbox on the client machine and the servefr.
AB
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 18:01:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Clifton Royston wrote:
> If the hash is reasonably robust, like an MD5, there should be a
> vanishingly small chance of this. There also should never be two
> messages with the same message ID, unless there is a problem in the
> mail system where they originated; perhaps concatenating a hash of the
> total headers and a hash of the message ID alone would reduce the odds
> further?
It would need to be a problem on the sender MUA and the relay machines
as Received: headers count towards the hash too.
I _have_ seen MS-based systems stamp the same identical message-ID on
all outbound messages over a several month period. It seemed to be some
dort of MAPI bug, but as qpopper's UIDL doesn't rely on message-ID, that
won't matter (and Messag-ID is OPTIONAL in mail systems anyway).
AB
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:00:11 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:56:01PM -0500, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
> > Thus, after making the switch pre-existing messages in the spool will
> > have UIDs that contain a random element, while new messages won't.
> > So there shouldn't be a problem with downloading old mail again.
>
> The question is what the CPU hit is like.
The more I research performance, the more I'm becoming aware that email
machines are nearly completely I/O bound. I believe it would be worth
trading a fairly walloping CPU hit for fewer disk accesses (because
there is no longer a need to rewrite the spool to insert the UIDLs.)
> > However, there is a greater chance of duplicate UIDs, which means
> > that potentially some messages might not get downloaded (since they
> > seem to be the same as an earlier message to the client).
>
> putting that in context, it was more of a problem with the older,
> shorted UIDLs, with current ones it should be unlikely even with a few
> thousand messages in the inbox on the client machine and the servefr.
Thanks for the clarification.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:19:44 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on configure options, please.
I seem to recall a problem where different messages had the same UID.
I think the latter message might have had 'Resent-' headers (which
aren't included in the UID hash), but I don't recall. I think the
messages had identical text and were sent by the same client, and
used the same path. Probably would be a good idea to include
'resent-' headers in the hash, at any rate.
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:11:12 +0800 (HKT)
From: PM WONG <pmwong at power25t.hkbu.edu dot hk>
Subject: files username.cache under the popdrop directory
There are many files named as
username.cache left in the directory where the .username.pop
files are.
Wonder what are they for ?
What's the effect if they are deleted.
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:42:10 +0800
From: Daniel Suen <ttdsuen at ln.edu dot hk>
Subject: auth_user undefined reference...
Hi All,
I tried compile Qpopper4.0.3 on my Solaris 8 with gcc installed. However,
when I compile the poppassd, it fails with an undefined reference to
auth_user in poppassd.o. However, I know it is already defined in
auth_user.c and should link properly with poppassd.o to produce poppassd.
Can anyone let me know what the problem is? Also, did anyone use poppassd
to change passwords through PAM to OpenLDAP Server?
Best,
Daniel.
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:04:06 -0500
From: Christina Plummer <chpr at mail.rochester dot edu>
Subject: IP address not being logged
None of the entries in my poplog file (generated by the -s flag to
qpopper) seem to be logging the IP address correctly. It records the
domain name, but all the IP addresses are logged as 255.255.255.255 or,
occasionally, 0.0.0.0. Here is an example:
Apr 3 12:02:13 5V:host1 qpopper[1769752]: (v3.1) POP login by user
"user1" at (name.changed.rochester.edu) 255.255.255.255
Apr 3 12:02:13 5V:host1 qpopper[1769752]: Stats: user1 0 0 0 0
name.changed.rochester.edu 255.255.255.255
This is version 3.1 running on an SGI IRIX 6.5 machine. The same version
on a Sun Solaris 7 box works correctly:
Apr 3 11:58:46 host2 qpopper[8302]: (v3.1) POP login by user "user2" at
(name.changed.rochester.edu) 128.151.xxx.xxx
Apr 3 11:58:47 host2 qpopper[8302]: Stats: user2 0 0 190 39854111
name.changed.rochester.edu 128.151.xxx.xxx
Any ideas what could be causing the problem here?
-- Christina
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Plummer christina.plummer at rochester dot edu
UNIX Systems Consultant (716)273-1651
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ted Cabeen <ted at impulse dot net>
Subject: Re: IP address not being logged
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 09:35:17 -0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In message <721823831744950975314 at lists.pensive dot org>, Christina Plummer writes:
>None of the entries in my poplog file (generated by the -s flag to
>qpopper) seem to be logging the IP address correctly. It records the
>domain name, but all the IP addresses are logged as 255.255.255.255 or,
>occasionally, 0.0.0.0. Here is an example:
>
>Apr 3 12:02:13 5V:host1 qpopper[1769752]: (v3.1) POP login by user
>"user1" at (name.changed.rochester.edu) 255.255.255.255
>Apr 3 12:02:13 5V:host1 qpopper[1769752]: Stats: user1 0 0 0 0
>name.changed.rochester.edu 255.255.255.255
>
>Any ideas what could be causing the problem here?
IRIX. I've seen the same behavior with SSH connections to an IRIX box. You
could try updating to the latest 6.5, but I don't know if the bug has been
fixed. I still see it on a 6.5.9 machine I have access to, but I know
they're on at least 6.5.12 by now.
- --
Ted Cabeen http://www.pobox.com/~secabeen ted at impulse dot net
Check Website or Keyserver for PGP/GPG Key BA0349D2 secabeen at pobox dot com
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province." -F. Bacon secabeen at cabeen dot org
"Human kind cannot bear very much reality."-T.S.Eliot cabeen at netcom dot com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (OpenBSD)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE8qz1VoayJfLoDSdIRAm6mAJ9/mkCi+/wfkr9nkK0OpLoqFO2fdACgjD6m
Iyq9GaJ3saBoKRWzAIrndzI
=Lmvn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:21:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Mike Peterson <mikep at onet.on dot ca>
Subject: qpopper4.0.3 on IRIX 6.2
Hello,
I've installed qpopper4.0.3 on IRIX 6.2, with '--enable-debugging',
and it fails to properly open the session - the client side sees:
Trying XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX...
Connected to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.
Escape character is '^]'.
Connection closed by foreign host.
and there is a 'popper' started on the server, but no debugging messages
anywhere.
Any clues, pointers appreciated.
Mike.
--
Mike Peterson, Senior Network Specialist, ONet Networking Support
E-mail: mikep at onet.on.ca WWW: http://onet.on dot ca/~mikep/
Tel: 416-978-5230 Fax: 416-978-6620
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:02:40 +0100
From: peter.allen at moon-light.co dot uk
Subject: Re: qpopper4.0.3 on IRIX 6.2
Could you have either a) tcp wrappers or b) firewall rules preventing the
connection ?
Check both inetd.conf and ipfwadm/ipchains/iptables to see. Having said
that one might expect some sort of logging...
Also are you sure that popper is running? You might try any of the
following to determine this:
netstat -an | grep 110
ps ax | grep popper or
lsof -i | grep pop3
all of which to see if qpopper is listening.
HTH
Peter
At 13:21 03/04/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I've installed qpopper4.0.3 on IRIX 6.2, with '--enable-debugging',
>and it fails to properly open the session - the client side sees:
>
>Trying XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX...
>Connected to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.
>Escape character is '^]'.
>Connection closed by foreign host.
>
>and there is a 'popper' started on the server, but no debugging messages
>anywhere.
>
>Any clues, pointers appreciated.
>
>Mike.
>--
>Mike Peterson, Senior Network Specialist, ONet Networking Support
>E-mail: mikep at onet.on.ca WWW: http://onet.on dot ca/~mikep/
>Tel: 416-978-5230 Fax: 416-978-6620
From: "Michael Caplan" <michael at social-ecology dot org>
Subject: Securing POP3 with QPopper
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:04:04 -0500
Hello,
I am new to POP3 servers and was hoping that folks on this list would be
able to offer some suggestions on security.
I am interested in installing QPopper with TLS/SSL, as this seems like it
would be the most secure configuration with regards to user authentication
and message contents. I am vaguely familiar with APOP, Kerberos, and PAM.
Is their any advantage to running SSL/TLS QPopper with any of these other
protocols, or is SSL/TLS sufficient on it's own?
One other concern I have with the general "stability" of QPopper itself in
terms of the developer turnaround time for dealing with new exploits. From
what I can tell from the Eudora site, QPopper 4.0.4 has been in Beta sine
September 2001. Is QPopper still being actively developed? It seems to me
that there are 2 significant security alerts that have yet to be resolved:
The 2048+ characters exploit
http://www.digitux.net/security/advisories.html?id=34&display=info, and the
'popauth' Module Symlink Bug
http://securitytracker.com/alerts/2001/Dec/1003005.html Can I expect a
rapid turnaround time for bug resolution?
Any feedback is appreciated
Michael Caplan
Institute for Social Ecology
http://www.social-ecology.org/
1118 Maple Hill Road
Plainfield, VT, 05667 USA
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:30:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mohamed M. Abbas" <mmabbas at longwood dot edu>
Subject: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
Hello All,
I run a combination of sendmail / qpopper setup for our email
infrastructure. And we've been having more and more users ( 5000 users
total ) start to leave their mail on the server. We have about 30 people
who have in excess of 25 Megs of mail on the server. When anyone of
those 30 users checks their email, the load on the system skyrockets
through the roof. My question is this: Is QPopper or POP3 suited for
situations where users leave their email on the server? And if it's not
suited for such purpose, what protocol / software is?
Any ideas or suggestions are appreciated...
Thanks,
Mohamed M. Abbas
mmabbas at longwood dot edu
System Adminsitrator
Longwood College
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:03:42 -0500
From: Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
At 03:30 PM 4/3/02, Mohamed M. Abbas wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I run a combination of sendmail / qpopper setup for our email
>infrastructure. And we've been having more and more users ( 5000 users
>total ) start to leave their mail on the server.
Time to institute a policy to sweep out the cruft.
> We have about 30 people
>who have in excess of 25 Megs of mail on the server. When anyone of
>those 30 users checks their email, the load on the system skyrockets
>through the roof.
We run a utility that sweeps out mailboxes. Presently we have it delete
anything that's been in a mailbox for more than 30 days. Worked like a
champ, and much easier than trying to police our user base.
> My question is this: Is QPopper or POP3 suited for
>situations where users leave their email on the server?
Well, qpopper is an application, and POP3 is the protocol it implements.
You might want to rephrase your question. As for qpopper's performance in
such cases, there are several tunable parameters which you might want to
consider. Others have discussed these recently. I'll let others comment on
the best approaches and tradeoffs.
> And if it's not
>suited for such purpose, what protocol / software is?
Your protocol choices are POP3 and IMAP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie dts at senie dot com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:26:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mohamed M. Abbas" <mmabbas at longwood dot edu>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Daniel Senie wrote:
> At 03:30 PM 4/3/02, Mohamed M. Abbas wrote:
> >Hello All,
> >
> >I run a combination of sendmail / qpopper setup for our email
> >infrastructure. And we've been having more and more users ( 5000 users
> >total ) start to leave their mail on the server.
>
> Time to institute a policy to sweep out the cruft.
> > We have about 30 people
> >who have in excess of 25 Megs of mail on the server. When anyone of
> >those 30 users checks their email, the load on the system skyrockets
> >through the roof.
>
> We run a utility that sweeps out mailboxes. Presently we have it delete
> anything that's been in a mailbox for more than 30 days. Worked like a
> champ, and much easier than trying to police our user base.
>
I thought about that. But I'm not sure if it's effective for a user base
of 5000, where there is a trend to leave mail on the server.
> > My question is this: Is QPopper or POP3 suited for
> >situations where users leave their email on the server?
>
> Well, qpopper is an application, and POP3 is the protocol it implements.
> You might want to rephrase your question. As for qpopper's performance in
> such cases, there are several tunable parameters which you might want to
> consider. Others have discussed these recently. I'll let others comment on
> the best approaches and tradeoffs.
> > And if it's not
> >suited for such purpose, what protocol / software is?
>
> Your protocol choices are POP3 and IMAP.
I guess I have to be more precise. Given the situation that I've described
above, which protocol is more suited for it? And if POP3 is suited, how do
I go about to configure QPopper in such a way as not to produce load
spikes every time someone who leaves his mail on ther server check his/her
email.
Mohamed M. Abbas
mmabbas at longwood dot edu
System Administrator
Longwood College
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:42:17 -0500
From: Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
At 04:26 PM 4/3/02, Mohamed M. Abbas wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
> > At 03:30 PM 4/3/02, Mohamed M. Abbas wrote:
> > >Hello All,
> > >
> > >I run a combination of sendmail / qpopper setup for our email
> > >infrastructure. And we've been having more and more users ( 5000 users
> > >total ) start to leave their mail on the server.
> >
> > Time to institute a policy to sweep out the cruft.
> > > We have about 30 people
> > >who have in excess of 25 Megs of mail on the server. When anyone of
> > >those 30 users checks their email, the load on the system skyrockets
> > >through the roof.
> >
> > We run a utility that sweeps out mailboxes. Presently we have it delete
> > anything that's been in a mailbox for more than 30 days. Worked like a
> > champ, and much easier than trying to police our user base.
> >
>
>I thought about that. But I'm not sure if it's effective for a user base
>of 5000, where there is a trend to leave mail on the server.
My feeling is, it's quite practical. I have the sweeper running at 3AM,
when few are using the server. But even so, the load from the sweeper is
minimal.
> > > My question is this: Is QPopper or POP3 suited for
> > >situations where users leave their email on the server?
> >
> > Well, qpopper is an application, and POP3 is the protocol it implements.
> > You might want to rephrase your question. As for qpopper's performance in
> > such cases, there are several tunable parameters which you might want to
> > consider. Others have discussed these recently. I'll let others comment on
> > the best approaches and tradeoffs.
>
> > > And if it's not
> > >suited for such purpose, what protocol / software is?
> >
> > Your protocol choices are POP3 and IMAP.
>
>I guess I have to be more precise. Given the situation that I've described
>above, which protocol is more suited for it?
Well, IMAP is more complex to describe to users. That's the primary reason
we don't support it. Just not worth the support costs.
> And if POP3 is suited, how do
>I go about to configure QPopper in such a way as not to produce load
>spikes every time someone who leaves his mail on ther server check his/her
>email.
This I'll leave to others. There's some material in the manual about this,
and some that folks have learned.
>Mohamed M. Abbas
>mmabbas at longwood dot edu
>System Administrator
>Longwood College
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie dts at senie dot com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:04:47 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:30:59PM -0500, Mohamed M. Abbas wrote:
> I run a combination of sendmail / qpopper setup for our email
> infrastructure. And we've been having more and more users ( 5000 users
> total ) start to leave their mail on the server. We have about 30 people
> who have in excess of 25 Megs of mail on the server. When anyone of
> those 30 users checks their email, the load on the system skyrockets
> through the roof.
If your users don't have UNIX shell access to the mail server, then
you should enable server-mode in qpopper, if you haven't already. Read
the Performance section of the Administrators guide.
> My question is this: Is QPopper or POP3 suited for
> situations where users leave their email on the server? And if it's not
> suited for such purpose, what protocol / software is?
If this is going to be the long-term situation, IMAP is definitely
the better protocol for those users to be using. IMAP is designed for
user manipulation and access to multiple mailboxes on the mail server.
Courier IMAP and UW imapd are both considered good open source
IMAP implementations. However, Courier only uses maildir format and
therefore can't coexist with qpopper.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
Subject: Re: Securing POP3 with QPopper
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:33:15 -0500
From: Ken Hornstein <kenh at cmf.nrl.navy dot mil>
>I am interested in installing QPopper with TLS/SSL, as this seems like it
>would be the most secure configuration with regards to user authentication
>and message contents. I am vaguely familiar with APOP, Kerberos, and PAM.
>Is their any advantage to running SSL/TLS QPopper with any of these other
>protocols, or is SSL/TLS sufficient on it's own?
Note: I'm a Kerberos guy, so I'm biased.
I hesitate to call PAM "authentication"; it's really just a way to pass in
a plaintext password to different backends, so it's orthogonal to TLS.
I think Kerberos is technically superior to TLS as most people use TLS
(note when I say Kerberos, I mean using Kerberos via GSSAPI which gives
you authentication _and_ encryption, not KPOP), because while some people
do use certificates with TLS, let's face it: no one has even tried to
address revocation in that environment, and I don't think the use of
client certificates is really that widespread. If you're not using
certificates, then the encryption that TLS provides is useful but not
secure.
The _big_ drawback to Kerberos is nowhere near as many clients support
it as support TLS.
--Ken
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:43:03 -0800
From: Joel Laing <joel at scripps dot edu>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
I think the biggest improvement you can make is to put the temp-drop-dir
on a separate drive. This will help lessen the I/O bottleneck. Also, use
fast drives. If possible, stripe multiple drives for performance on both
the spool file system, and the tmp-drop-dir file system. Mind you, I've
not really played with the 4.x possibilities, but the above greatly
improved performance for my 3.x setup.
Daniel Senie wrote:
> At 04:26 PM 4/3/02, Mohamed M. Abbas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Daniel Senie wrote:
>>
>> > At 03:30 PM 4/3/02, Mohamed M. Abbas wrote:
>> > >Hello All,
>> > >
>> > >I run a combination of sendmail / qpopper setup for our email
>> > >infrastructure. And we've been having more and more users ( 5000
>> users
>> > >total ) start to leave their mail on the server.
>> >
>> > Time to institute a policy to sweep out the cruft.
>> > > We have about 30 people
>> > >who have in excess of 25 Megs of mail on the server. When anyone of
>> > >those 30 users checks their email, the load on the system skyrockets
>> > >through the roof.
>> >
>> > We run a utility that sweeps out mailboxes. Presently we have it
>> delete
>> > anything that's been in a mailbox for more than 30 days. Worked like a
>> > champ, and much easier than trying to police our user base.
>> >
>>
>> I thought about that. But I'm not sure if it's effective for a user base
>> of 5000, where there is a trend to leave mail on the server.
>
>
> My feeling is, it's quite practical. I have the sweeper running at
> 3AM, when few are using the server. But even so, the load from the
> sweeper is minimal.
>
>
>> > > My question is this: Is QPopper or POP3 suited for
>> > >situations where users leave their email on the server?
>> >
>> > Well, qpopper is an application, and POP3 is the protocol it
>> implements.
>> > You might want to rephrase your question. As for qpopper's
>> performance in
>> > such cases, there are several tunable parameters which you might
>> want to
>> > consider. Others have discussed these recently. I'll let others
>> comment on
>> > the best approaches and tradeoffs.
>>
>> > > And if it's not
>> > >suited for such purpose, what protocol / software is?
>> >
>> > Your protocol choices are POP3 and IMAP.
>>
>> I guess I have to be more precise. Given the situation that I've
>> described
>> above, which protocol is more suited for it?
>
>
> Well, IMAP is more complex to describe to users. That's the primary
> reason we don't support it. Just not worth the support costs.
>
>> And if POP3 is suited, how do
>> I go about to configure QPopper in such a way as not to produce load
>> spikes every time someone who leaves his mail on ther server check
>> his/her
>> email.
>
>
> This I'll leave to others. There's some material in the manual about
> this, and some that folks have learned.
>
>
>> Mohamed M. Abbas
>> mmabbas at longwood dot edu
>> System Administrator
>> Longwood College
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Senie dts at senie dot com
> Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
>
>
>
>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:22:38 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 02:43:03PM -0800, Joel Laing wrote:
> I think the biggest improvement you can make is to put the temp-drop-dir
> on a separate drive. This will help lessen the I/O bottleneck. Also, use
> fast drives. If possible, stripe multiple drives for performance on both
> the spool file system, and the tmp-drop-dir file system. Mind you, I've
> not really played with the 4.x possibilities, but the above greatly
> improved performance for my 3.x setup.
Yes, this is all good advice in terms of hardware and file system
layout. A further note is to use RAID hardware, if you can afford to,
with the drives in a RAID 1+0 configuration for maximum performance.
It all depends what your budget allows.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:50:28 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: IP address not being logged
Try using a different version of gcc.
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:06:44 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: Securing POP3 with QPopper
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:04:04PM -0500, Michael Caplan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to POP3 servers and was hoping that folks on this list would be
> able to offer some suggestions on security.
>
> I am interested in installing QPopper with TLS/SSL, as this seems like it
> would be the most secure configuration with regards to user authentication
> and message contents. I am vaguely familiar with APOP, Kerberos, and PAM.
> Is their any advantage to running SSL/TLS QPopper with any of these other
> protocols, or is SSL/TLS sufficient on it's own?
The point of TLS is to obscure the username/password exchange via
encryption; Kerberos and APOP on the other hand provide alternative
authentication methods which don't require the exchange of a password.
I would view them as providing less security advantage in the TLS
setting.
PAM, as noted by the other reply, is just a programmatic interface to
different authentication mechanisms, and not a protocol; it doesn't
affect the visible exchange with the user/client.
> One other concern I have with the general "stability" of QPopper itself in
> terms of the developer turnaround time for dealing with new exploits. From
> what I can tell from the Eudora site, QPopper 4.0.4 has been in Beta sine
> September 2001. Is QPopper still being actively developed?
Yes it definitely is.
> It seems to me
> that there are 2 significant security alerts that have yet to be resolved:
> The 2048+ characters exploit
> http://www.digitux.net/security/advisories.html?id=34&display=info, and the
> 'popauth' Module Symlink Bug
> http://securitytracker.com/alerts/2001/Dec/1003005.html Can I expect a
> rapid turnaround time for bug resolution?
IMHO "yes", as regards patches being available; "no" as regards new
releases getting rolled out with those fixes.
The popauth thing doesn't seem as serious to me in that most
installations simply don't build or use popauth. Maybe that's a case
of tunnel vision on my part. Nonetheless it should get addressed.
I've already said my piece on the Digitux thing recently, so I don't
want to beat that horse again. See the archive if you're curious.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
From: <eperez at consultant dot com>
Subject: Qpopper and repeated messages
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:27:42 -0500
Sirs, Im running qpopper in server mode and sometimes messages are
duplicated up to 20 times per message.
Any ideas or suggestions?
Erick A. Perez H.
Asesor de Seguridad informatica
y TeleComunicaciones
Panama, Republica de Panama
Tel. (507) 226-6217
Movil. (507) 652-4889
eperez at consultant dot com
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:18:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Chip Old <fold at bcpl dot net>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Joel Laing wrote to Daniel Senie:
> I think the biggest improvement you can make is to put the temp-drop-dir
> on a separate drive. This will help lessen the I/O bottleneck. Also, use
> fast drives. If possible, stripe multiple drives for performance on both
> the spool file system, and the tmp-drop-dir file system. Mind you, I've
> not really played with the 4.x possibilities, but the above greatly
> improved performance for my 3.x setup.
Agreed. Mail system performance is more an issue of efficient disk I/O
than of processing power. Even with 4.x you can fine tune Qpopper all you
want, but if you have an I/O bottleneck Qpopper will still perform poorly.
On my Solaris mail machine (9500 users) I moved /var/mail (mailboxes),
/var/spool (including Qpopper temp-drop-dir), and the rest of /var (most
logging) to separate disks on separate disk controllers. This made a
tremendous improvement in performance.
It still doesn't address the problem of users with huge mailboxes. They
will still slow everything down.
--
Chip Old (Francis E. Old) E-Mail: fold at bcpl dot net
Manager, BCPL Network Services Phone: 410-887-6180
Manager, BCPL.NET Internet Services FAX: 410-887-2091
320 York Road
Towson, MD 21204 USA
From: "Michael Caplan" <michael at social-ecology dot org>
Subject: RE: Securing POP3 with QPopper
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:22:58 -0500
Clifton and all,
Thank you for the replies. Perhaps I missed it, but is there a patch
repository?
Thanks,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Clifton Royston [mailto:cliftonr at lava dot net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:07 PM
To: Michael Caplan
Cc: Subscribers of Qpopper
Subject: Re: Securing POP3 with QPopper
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:04:04PM -0500, Michael Caplan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to POP3 servers and was hoping that folks on this list would be
> able to offer some suggestions on security.
>
> I am interested in installing QPopper with TLS/SSL, as this seems like it
> would be the most secure configuration with regards to user authentication
> and message contents. I am vaguely familiar with APOP, Kerberos, and PAM.
> Is their any advantage to running SSL/TLS QPopper with any of these other
> protocols, or is SSL/TLS sufficient on it's own?
The point of TLS is to obscure the username/password exchange via
encryption; Kerberos and APOP on the other hand provide alternative
authentication methods which don't require the exchange of a password.
I would view them as providing less security advantage in the TLS
setting.
PAM, as noted by the other reply, is just a programmatic interface to
different authentication mechanisms, and not a protocol; it doesn't
affect the visible exchange with the user/client.
> One other concern I have with the general "stability" of QPopper itself in
> terms of the developer turnaround time for dealing with new exploits.
From
> what I can tell from the Eudora site, QPopper 4.0.4 has been in Beta sine
> September 2001. Is QPopper still being actively developed?
Yes it definitely is.
> It seems to me
> that there are 2 significant security alerts that have yet to be resolved:
> The 2048+ characters exploit
> http://www.digitux.net/security/advisories.html?id=34&display=info, and
the
> 'popauth' Module Symlink Bug
> http://securitytracker.com/alerts/2001/Dec/1003005.html Can I expect a
> rapid turnaround time for bug resolution?
IMHO "yes", as regards patches being available; "no" as regards new
releases getting rolled out with those fixes.
The popauth thing doesn't seem as serious to me in that most
installations simply don't build or use popauth. Maybe that's a case
of tunnel vision on my part. Nonetheless it should get addressed.
I've already said my piece on the Digitux thing recently, so I don't
want to beat that horse again. See the archive if you're curious.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:14:50 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: Securing POP3 with QPopper
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:22:58PM -0500, Michael Caplan wrote:
> Clifton and all,
>
> Thank you for the replies. Perhaps I missed it, but is there a patch
> repository?
Regrettably, I'm not aware of one.
See <http://shaveice.lava.net/qpopper/> for my *completely* unofficial
patch against 4.0.3 which seems to address at least some variations of
the Digitux exploit, for at least some systems.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
From: "Simon May" <simon at imsl dot es>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper cleaning up the mail spool
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:35:41 +0200
I recently found a lot of spool files with very old mail in them.
Looking around the web I found the following to felt it would be of interest
to othe Sysadmin's
http://www.sunmanagers.org/archives/1995/0297.html
Kind Regards
Simon May
Network Administrator
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:04:54 +0200
From: Valter Nordh <valter at che.chalmers dot se>
Subject: Re: IP address not being logged
Have a look at this, it helped me:
http://bugs.apache.org/index.cgi/full/2829
/Valter
At 12:04 2002-04-03 -0500, Christina Plummer wrote:
>None of the entries in my poplog file (generated by the -s flag to
>qpopper) seem to be logging the IP address correctly. It records the
>domain name, but all the IP addresses are logged as 255.255.255.255 or,
>occasionally, 0.0.0.0. Here is an example:
>
>Apr 3 12:02:13 5V:host1 qpopper[1769752]: (v3.1) POP login by user
>"user1" at (name.changed.rochester.edu) 255.255.255.255
>Apr 3 12:02:13 5V:host1 qpopper[1769752]: Stats: user1 0 0 0 0
>name.changed.rochester.edu 255.255.255.255
>
>This is version 3.1 running on an SGI IRIX 6.5 machine. The same version
>on a Sun Solaris 7 box works correctly:
>
>Apr 3 11:58:46 host2 qpopper[8302]: (v3.1) POP login by user "user2" at
>(name.changed.rochester.edu) 128.151.xxx.xxx
>Apr 3 11:58:47 host2 qpopper[8302]: Stats: user2 0 0 190 39854111
>name.changed.rochester.edu 128.151.xxx.xxx
>
>Any ideas what could be causing the problem here?
>
> -- Christina
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Christina Plummer christina.plummer at rochester dot edu
>UNIX Systems Consultant (716)273-1651
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:49:36 -0500 (EST)
From: gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com
Subject: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
I recently loaded qpopper 4.0.3 on Redhat 7.2.
I can telnet to port 110 and can view the mail via that method.
But when I use a mail client, Oulook Express on NT and Mozilla Mail client
on Linux Machine and get the following error
The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com',
Server: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL):
No, Socket Error: 10071, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
I checked the FAQ, and the list archive and couldnt find anything.
Anyone have any clue on what I can do to get the mail clients to work?
Rich
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:42:12 -0500
From: Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Subject: Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
At 02:49 PM 4/4/02, gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com wrote:
>I recently loaded qpopper 4.0.3 on Redhat 7.2.
>I can telnet to port 110 and can view the mail via that method.
>But when I use a mail client, Oulook Express on NT and Mozilla Mail client
>on Linux Machine and get the following error
>
>The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com',
>Server: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL):
>No, Socket Error: 10071, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
>
>I checked the FAQ, and the list archive and couldnt find anything.
>Anyone have any clue on what I can do to get the mail clients to work?
Well, you can start by mentioning how you configured qpopper, and how you
configured the clients. With Outlook, tell it to NOT use TLS/SSL. Outlook
is broken, and will not negotiate STARTTLS. You can set up Qpopper to run
on two ports, the second being 995 with TLS forced, and point Outlook at
that. Someday, Microsoft might actually read the RFCs and implement
STARTTLS, but I'm not holding my breath.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie dts at senie dot com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:25:58 -0500 (EST)
From: gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com
Subject: Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 peter.allen at moon-light.co dot uk wrote:
I can telnet to port 110 from both machine that have the mail clients.
I installed Qpopper with no extra flags when I did the
./configure
Here is xinetd.conf
service pop3
{
flags = REUSE
socket_type = stream
protocol = tcp
wait = no
user = root
server = /home/gnat/qpopper4.0.3/popper/popper
server_args = qpopper -s
port = 110
}
The mail clients are all set to pop off a pop3 server.
Outlook Express is using DO NOT log on using Secure Password
Authenitaction
Mozilla doesnt have an option to set to SSL or anything else.
Rich
>
> What is in the logs on your server when you trying popping from the other
> machines.
>
> To be clear, are you able to telnet to port 110 from the *same* machines as
> you get that error message?
>
> Peter
>
>
> At 14:49 04/04/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >I recently loaded qpopper 4.0.3 on Redhat 7.2.
> >I can telnet to port 110 and can view the mail via that method.
> >But when I use a mail client, Oulook Express on NT and Mozilla Mail client
> >on Linux Machine and get the following error
> >
> >The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com',
> >Server: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL):
> >No, Socket Error: 10071, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
> >
> >I checked the FAQ, and the list archive and couldnt find anything.
> >Anyone have any clue on what I can do to get the mail clients to work?
> >
> >Rich
>
>
Subject: Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:25:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Eric Luyten <Eric.Luyten at vub.ac dot be>
> The mail clients are all set to pop off a pop3 server.
Using the *account* 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com' , right ?
Eric Luyten, Computing Centre VUB/ULB.
--
A. No.
Q. Can I top-post ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >I recently loaded qpopper 4.0.3 on Redhat 7.2.
> > >I can telnet to port 110 and can view the mail via that method.
> > >But when I use a mail client, Oulook Express on NT and Mozilla Mail client
> > >on Linux Machine and get the following error
> > >
> > >The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com',
> > >Server: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL):
> > >No, Socket Error: 10071, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
> > >
> > >I checked the FAQ, and the list archive and couldnt find anything.
> > >Anyone have any clue on what I can do to get the mail clients to work?
> > >
> > >Rich
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:55:42 +0100
From: peter.allen at moon-light.co dot uk
Subject: Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
Although I stubbornly try to avoid knowing anything at all about Outlook, I
believe that you set up an account which you can call whatever you like.
The username specified for that account is not necessarily the same, but
you may well have found the solution. Over to Rich for that.
Peter
At 17:25 04/04/02 +0200, Eric Luyten wrote:
> > The mail clients are all set to pop off a pop3 server.
>
>
>Using the *account* 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com' , right ?
>
>
>Eric Luyten, Computing Centre VUB/ULB.
>--
>A. No.
>Q. Can I top-post ?
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > >I recently loaded qpopper 4.0.3 on Redhat 7.2.
> > > >I can telnet to port 110 and can view the mail via that method.
> > > >But when I use a mail client, Oulook Express on NT and Mozilla Mail
> client
> > > >on Linux Machine and get the following error
> > > >
> > > >The connection to the server has failed. Account:
> 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com',
> > > >Server: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL):
> > > >No, Socket Error: 10071, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
> > > >
> > > >I checked the FAQ, and the list archive and couldnt find anything.
> > > >Anyone have any clue on what I can do to get the mail clients to work?
> > > >
> > > >Rich
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:47:26 -0500 (EST)
From: gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com
Subject: Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
I have set the username as gnat
and bogie.thefilmdogs.com as the incoming mail server.
Both mail clients can pop off of other mail servers.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 peter.allen at moon-light.co dot uk wrote:
>
> Although I stubbornly try to avoid knowing anything at all about Outlook, I
> believe that you set up an account which you can call whatever you like.
>
> The username specified for that account is not necessarily the same, but
> you may well have found the solution. Over to Rich for that.
>
> Peter
>
>
> At 17:25 04/04/02 +0200, Eric Luyten wrote:
> > > The mail clients are all set to pop off a pop3 server.
> >
> >
> >Using the *account* 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com' , right ?
> >
> >
> >Eric Luyten, Computing Centre VUB/ULB.
> >--
> >A. No.
> >Q. Can I top-post ?
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > >I recently loaded qpopper 4.0.3 on Redhat 7.2.
> > > > >I can telnet to port 110 and can view the mail via that method.
> > > > >But when I use a mail client, Oulook Express on NT and Mozilla Mail
> > client
> > > > >on Linux Machine and get the following error
> > > > >
> > > > >The connection to the server has failed. Account:
> > 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com',
> > > > >Server: 'bogie.thefilmdogs.com', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL):
> > > > >No, Socket Error: 10071, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
> > > > >
> > > > >I checked the FAQ, and the list archive and couldnt find anything.
> > > > >Anyone have any clue on what I can do to get the mail clients to work?
> > > > >
> > > > >Rich
>
>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:33:21 -0500
From: "Michael D. Sofka" <sofkam at rpi dot edu>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
At 02:43 PM 4/3/2002 -0800, Joel Laing wrote:
>I think the biggest improvement you can make is to put the temp-drop-dir
>on a separate drive. This will help lessen the I/O bottleneck. Also, use
>fast drives. If possible, stripe multiple drives for performance on both
>the spool file system, and the tmp-drop-dir file system. Mind you, I've
>not really played with the 4.x possibilities, but the above greatly
>improved performance for my 3.x setup.
No necessarily. If the temp file and maibox are on different
partitions, qpopper had to copy the temp data back to the
mail box. If they are on the same partition qpopper can (and
does) do a move (unlinks the old file, relinks the new).
For a small spool, I found a separate disk faster. For our
current spool having the temp files on the same partition is
much faster. (Lookup fast-update option in qpopper manual).
You should also consider using a hashed spool, which decreases
lookup times in directories, and avoids lock contention. Server
mode also uses the .cache files to avoid scanning large mailboxes
when they do not have new mail---this is a big win.
Now, the $64,000 question. The .cache code is incomplete. The
cache file stores the header information qpopper returns to the
client. If the .cache file is older than the mailbox, qpopper re-scans
the mailbox. This is not necessary, the information in the .cache
file is still good, it is just incomplete. It would be much (much (much))
faster to use the .cache information to scan only the new mail.
I could see two options, a --fast-cache and a --safe-cache. Fast cache
would assume that nothing else affects the mailbox file, and all new
mail is appended. It would just read the .cache and seek to the next
new message. --safe-cache would assume that something else
might remove messages (such as an old message scanner), and so
would seek-and-confirm each .cache entry. This would still be faster
than a re-scan. The source says that .cache is incomplete. Is anybody
else completing it?
Regarding scanning the spool and removing old mail--this is a very good
idea. We do this once a week, it typically removes 600-800meg of old
mail. Without it, we would soon be buried in old messages. It would
be nice if qpopper could do this. Say an option to remove messages
that are more than n days old.
Mike
Another
--
Michael Sofka sofkam at rpi dot edu
CCT Sr. Systems Programmer email, webmail, listproc, TeX, epistemology.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:46:14 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: Qpopper doesnt work w/mail clients
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 04:47:26PM -0500, gnat at bogie.thefilmdogs dot com wrote:
> I have set the username as gnat
> and bogie.thefilmdogs.com as the incoming mail server.
>
> Both mail clients can pop off of other mail servers.
What do your Qpopper logs on the mail server say? That's the single
most important place to look.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- cliftonr at lava dot net
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:09:26 -0800 (PST)
From: luke <luke at cisdata dot net>
Subject: maildir patch for 3.x?
I'm currently running the exim-qpopper-mysql-0.11.2 patches against
qpopper3.1.2- Thing is, I have to support many users with large
mailboxes that are left on the server. The disk IO is killing me.
I think the easiest solution is to go to a maildir mailbox storage
system. The only maildir patch I've found for qpopper is for version
2.x. Has anyone updated the patch for 3.x? If not, I'm going to
give it a shot.
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:40:44 -0800 (PST)
From: The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Subject: qpopper-mysql-0.4 - new release
Put on my software page (http://www.asteroid-b612.org/software) today a
new version of my qpopper mysql patch.
Changes from the last version are listed below.
Thank
--Tony
Last updated: 4 April 2002
Changes from 0.3 to 0.4:
---------------------------
1. Added ability to do HOMEDIRMAIL with mysql authentication.
"/home" is the default base path for the user's home directory
(since we're not using /etc/passwd).
You can change this by modifying MYSQL_DEFAULT_HOMEDIR in pop_user.c
You can use this with a virtual setup and hashing.
Example directory paths are /home/user, /home/u/s/user,
/home/domain.com/user, /home/domain.com/u/s/user (see README.MYSQL
for all of them)
2. Changed error message for bad sql fetch to say "Authentication query
failed, account may not exist." instead of saying that the password
for that account is incorrect.
3. Added "md5" and "mysql" methods for password checking
(for the MysqlAuthPasswordMethod option). Also added "any" method
which will check all methods (since now there are more than 2). The
"both" method can still be used. I left it in for compatibility.
4. Added hashing and virtual cases for user-opt/spool-opt paths
in pop_config.c
5. Updated README.MYSQL
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer
thelittleprince at asteroid-b612.org http://www.asteroid-b612 dot org
"Strange, but it seems, there's a mutiny brewing inside of me"
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:45:28 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Qpopper and repeated messages
At 8:27 PM -0500 4/3/02, <eperez at consultant dot com> wrote:
>Sirs, Im running qpopper in server mode and sometimes messages are
>duplicated up to 20 times per message.
>
>Any ideas or suggestions?
>
>
>Erick A. Perez H.
>Asesor de Seguridad informatica
>y TeleComunicaciones
>Panama, Republica de Panama
>Tel. (507) 226-6217
>Movil. (507) 652-4889
>eperez at consultant dot com
>
Are the spools OK except for the duplicate messages, or is there
other corruption? Does this happen to all users, or only some? Are
the messages really identical, or is there some difference, such as
different timestamps in the Received headers? Are the messages sent
from an external server or are they generated locally?
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:43:43 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: POP3 / QPopper when Leaving Mail on Server
At 10:33 AM -0500 4/4/02, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
>The .cache code is incomplete. The
>cache file stores the header information qpopper returns to the
>client. If the .cache file is older than the mailbox, qpopper re-scans
>the mailbox. This is not necessary, the information in the .cache
>file is still good, it is just incomplete. It would be much (much (much))
>faster to use the .cache information to scan only the new mail.
Yes, it would. Note that the code does handle bulletins being added
to the mailbox, just not any other modifications.
>
>I could see two options, a --fast-cache and a --safe-cache. Fast cache
>would assume that nothing else affects the mailbox file, and all new
>mail is appended. It would just read the .cache and seek to the next
>new message. --safe-cache would assume that something else
>might remove messages (such as an old message scanner), and so
>would seek-and-confirm each .cache entry. This would still be faster
>than a re-scan. The source says that .cache is incomplete. Is anybody
>else completing it?
Volunteers are always welcome.
>Regarding scanning the spool and removing old mail--this is a very good
>idea. We do this once a week, it typically removes 600-800meg of old
>mail. Without it, we would soon be buried in old messages. It would
>be nice if qpopper could do this. Say an option to remove messages
>that are more than n days old.
There is an option to immediately delete downloaded mail. Extending
it to delete messages n days old would be nice, and would fit with
the CAPA EXPIRE tag facility to notify clients of the policy. Again,
volunteers are always welcome.
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:11:49 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Qpopper 4.0.4fc3 available
Qpopper 4.0.4fc3 is available at
<ftp://ftp.qualcomm.com/eudora/servers/unix/popper/beta/>.
The full list of changes from one release to the next is on the FTP
site, at
<ftp://ftp.qualcomm.com/eudora/servers/unix/popper/beta/Changes>.
Changes from 4.0.4fc2 to 4.0.4fc3:
----------------------------------
1. Fixed DOS attack seen on some systems.
From: "Erick Perez" <eperez at consultant dot com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:16:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Qpopper and repeated messages
Spool ar Ok. It happens in 3 user machines and those users have the "leave copy of message on server" enabled.
Mail Client Outlook express on windows 98.
external and internal messages.
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:45:28 -0800
To: <eperez at consultant.com>, Subscribers of Qpopper <qpopper at lists dot pensive dot org>
Subject: Re: Qpopper and repeated messages
> At 8:27 PM -0500 4/3/02, <eperez at consultant dot com> wrote:
>
> >Sirs, Im running qpopper in server mode and sometimes messages are
> >duplicated up to 20 times per message.
> >
> >Any ideas or suggestions?
> >
> >
> >Erick A. Perez H.
> >Asesor de Seguridad informatica
> >y TeleComunicaciones
> >Panama, Republica de Panama
> >Tel. (507) 226-6217
> >Movil. (507) 652-4889
> >eperez at consultant dot com
> >
>
> Are the spools OK except for the duplicate messages, or is there
> other corruption? Does this happen to all users, or only some? Are
> the messages really identical, or is there some difference, such as
> different timestamps in the Received headers? Are the messages sent
> from an external server or are they generated locally?
>
--
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
From: jnemeth at victoria.tc dot ca (John Nemeth)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:57:43 -0800
Subject: Re: Qpopper 4.0.4fc3 available
On Aug 25, 1:47pm, Randall Gellens wrote:
}
} Qpopper 4.0.4fc3 is available at
} <ftp://ftp.qualcomm.com/eudora/servers/unix/popper/beta/>.
}
} The full list of changes from one release to the next is on the FTP
} site, at
} <ftp://ftp.qualcomm.com/eudora/servers/unix/popper/beta/Changes>.
}
} Changes from 4.0.4fc2 to 4.0.4fc3:
} ----------------------------------
} 1. Fixed DOS attack seen on some systems.
Is 4.0.4fc2 still available (or a diff), so that we can see exactly
what changed?
}-- End of excerpt from Randall Gellens
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:17:01 +0200
From: Jesus Cea Avion <jcea at argo dot es>
Subject: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
Problem:
- People leaves mail in the mailbox. Scanning the mailbox every time is
a I/O hungry operation
- Rewritting a partially updated mailbox is very expensive. UIDL update,
partial mailbox deleting, mail arrives while the popper is running...
Solution:
A simple and efficient database (key/value) used to store messages. For
example, BerkeleyDB (http://www.sleepycat.com/)
Qpopper would have six operations:
- Translate estándar mailboxes into the database.
- Serve mails from database.
- An additional tool to show statistics about users: messages in
database, lenght, last login, quota...
- An additional tool to list and delete a concrete user message.
- An additional tool to delete an user and all its messages.
- An additional tool to kill all popper processes, disable POP3 logins
and reconstruct the database if it's neccesary. This operation,
tipically, lasts 4-5 seconds.
We could have have another tool to delete messages already read and
older that a month, for example.
Example:
You could have a central mailbox database. Every email in the database
would have a unique UID. Every message resides in two register, for
example. One register contains the message body. The other register has
the message headers, which can be modified by qpopper (UIDL, Status,
etc).
There are per user registers to keep data like messages UID, messages
length, quota, last login, perhaps UIDL and Status.
There is a global register that keep a global serial number (used as a
UID generator), atomically updated every time a message is added to the
database.
When an user enters POP3, qpopper would translate new messages in user
standard mailbox into the database (erasing the original mailbox). Then,
the messages are served from the database. The message migration can be
implemented, also, with a cron job to migrate mailboxes with infrequent
logins.
The unique remaining problem would be "quotas", a very problematic issue
for current qpopper also. If you control the local mailer you can talk
to the database and control quotas there.
Advantages:
- You don't need scan anything when you have the messages in the
database. You know, everytime, how many messages an user has, lenght,
and so on. If new email arrives, you migrate it to the database.
- You can delete individual messages without needing a mailbox
rewriting.
- You can modify headers without expensive I/O, since headers (tipically
<2Kbytes) are kept separated from message bodies.
- New messages arriving while qpopper is working don't require mailbox
rewriting.
- Berkeley DB, for example, can retrieves partial registers. That is,
you can have a 15 MB message, and you don't need to read it in a shot.
In fact, you can read the message in 64 Kbytes chunks, for example, to
keep memory and I/O small.
- Berkeley DB overhead in disk space and CPU is fairly small.
- Berkeley DB implements atomic transactions. In fact, you have full
ACID semantic. A popper processs can die any time and the database is
always consistent.
- Berkeley DB detects and resolve deadlocks when multiple processes
access the database.
- Berkeley DB is free for non commercial usages.
- Last Berkeley DB version supports replication.
- You can support multiple mailboxes format: mailbox and maildir, for
example. The unique impact would be to program the mailbox to database
converter. This step if fairly simple.
PS: I'm advocating Berkeley DB because I'm using the system for years in
big (millions of registers) and critical environments, and its
performance and safety are stunning. But any similar DB will do the
work. Observe that I'm not talking about SQL database. That's not the
way. I'm talking about fully ACID semantic key/value databases.
--
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/
jcea at argo.es http://www.argo dot es/~jcea/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
PGP Key Available at KeyServ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
"Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
"My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/
"El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:58:05 +0000
From: gsh at skima dot is
Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
Better to store each message in a seperate file, just use the
database to keep key info about that message file, storing
large messages in such a db is problemmatic, file system is
much more efficient. You might even keep the message in a
prescanned format (even binary) for faster access.
Rgds,
-GSH
> Problem:
>
> - People leaves mail in the mailbox. Scanning the mailbox every time is
> a I/O hungry operation
>
> - Rewritting a partially updated mailbox is very expensive. UIDL update,
> partial mailbox deleting, mail arrives while the popper is running...
>
> Solution:
>
> A simple and efficient database (key/value) used to store messages. For
> example, BerkeleyDB (http://www.sleepycat.com/)
>
> Qpopper would have six operations:
>
> - Translate estándar mailboxes into the database.
>
> - Serve mails from database.
>
> - An additional tool to show statistics about users: messages in
> database, lenght, last login, quota...
>
> - An additional tool to list and delete a concrete user message.
>
> - An additional tool to delete an user and all its messages.
>
> - An additional tool to kill all popper processes, disable POP3 logins
> and reconstruct the database if it's neccesary. This operation,
> tipically, lasts 4-5 seconds.
>
> We could have have another tool to delete messages already read and
> older that a month, for example.
>
> Example:
>
> You could have a central mailbox database. Every email in the database
> would have a unique UID. Every message resides in two register, for
> example. One register contains the message body. The other register has
> the message headers, which can be modified by qpopper (UIDL, Status,
> etc).
>
> There are per user registers to keep data like messages UID, messages
> length, quota, last login, perhaps UIDL and Status.
>
> There is a global register that keep a global serial number (used as a
> UID generator), atomically updated every time a message is added to the
> database.
>
> When an user enters POP3, qpopper would translate new messages in user
> standard mailbox into the database (erasing the original mailbox). Then,
> the messages are served from the database. The message migration can be
> implemented, also, with a cron job to migrate mailboxes with infrequent
> logins.
>
> The unique remaining problem would be "quotas", a very problematic issue
> for current qpopper also. If you control the local mailer you can talk
> to the database and control quotas there.
>
> Advantages:
>
> - You don't need scan anything when you have the messages in the
> database. You know, everytime, how many messages an user has, lenght,
> and so on. If new email arrives, you migrate it to the database.
>
> - You can delete individual messages without needing a mailbox
> rewriting.
>
> - You can modify headers without expensive I/O, since headers (tipically
> <2Kbytes) are kept separated from message bodies.
>
> - New messages arriving while qpopper is working don't require mailbox
> rewriting.
>
> - Berkeley DB, for example, can retrieves partial registers. That is,
> you can have a 15 MB message, and you don't need to read it in a shot.
> In fact, you can read the message in 64 Kbytes chunks, for example, to
> keep memory and I/O small.
>
> - Berkeley DB overhead in disk space and CPU is fairly small.
>
> - Berkeley DB implements atomic transactions. In fact, you have full
> ACID semantic. A popper processs can die any time and the database is
> always consistent.
>
> - Berkeley DB detects and resolve deadlocks when multiple processes
> access the database.
>
> - Berkeley DB is free for non commercial usages.
>
> - Last Berkeley DB version supports replication.
>
> - You can support multiple mailboxes format: mailbox and maildir, for
> example. The unique impact would be to program the mailbox to database
> converter. This step if fairly simple.
>
> PS: I'm advocating Berkeley DB because I'm using the system for years in
> big (millions of registers) and critical environments, and its
> performance and safety are stunning. But any similar DB will do the
> work. Observe that I'm not talking about SQL database. That's not the
> way. I'm talking about fully ACID semantic key/value databases.
>
> --
> Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/
> jcea at argo.es http://www.argo dot es/~jcea/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
> _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
> PGP Key Available at KeyServ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
> "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
> "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/
> "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:25:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Gregory Hicks <ghicks at cadence dot com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:17:01 +0200
> From: Jesus Cea Avion <jcea at argo dot es>
>
> Problem:
[...snip...]
>
> Solution:
>
> A simple and efficient database (key/value) used to store messages.
This is a solution that is commercially available and has a good many
customers. The software integrates nicely with many current desktop
apps. Comes complete with built in calendaring and appointment system.
Unfortunately, it only *nicely* uses ONE mail reader... It has the
potential to use many readers but deliberately does not integrate at ALL
with any of the others.
The name of this commercial package and the reader? Exchange and
Outlook...
The rest of your idea, though, are good and seem well thought out...
Personally, I don't like the idea of keeping messages in a database...
From experience, it is way too hard to guarantee good backups and thus
be sure that you will get a usable restore... Of course, that might
just be the product being restored...
Regards,
Gregory Hicks
For
> example, BerkeleyDB (http://www.sleepycat.com/)
>
[...snip...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609
555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479
San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks at cadence dot com
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
"The trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was."
When a team of dedicated individuals makes a commitment to act as
one... the sky's the limit.
From: kkim at telcordia dot com
Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:48:16 -0500
Hello,
I am haveing problem with sendmail, think it is related to
rules of sendmail that is defined in sendmail.cf. Whenver I put
email address surrounded by " " ( "user@domain dot com"), what sendmail
does is it is adding the domain name at the end before it sends out so when
I get the email, I have "user@domain.com"@domain dot com.
Can you guys please help me how to tell or avoid appending the extra domain
name
at the end of email address ???
Thanks
-K.Kim-
Gregory Hicks <ghicks at cadence dot com> on 04/05/2002 10:25:28 AM
To: qpopper at lists.pensive dot org, jcea at argo dot es
cc: ghicks at pony-express.cAdence dot COM (bcc: Kyeongwon Kim/Telcordia)
Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new and enhanced "server mode"
> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:17:01 +0200
> From: Jesus Cea Avion <jcea at argo dot es>
>
> Problem:
[...snip...]
>
> Solution:
>
> A simple and efficient database (key/value) used to store messages.
This is a solution that is commercially available and has a good many
customers. The software integrates nicely with many current desktop
apps. Comes complete with built in calendaring and appointment system.
Unfortunately, it only *nicely* uses ONE mail reader... It has the
potential to use many readers but deliberately does not integrate at ALL
with any of the others.
The name of this commercial package and the reader? Exchange and
Outlook...
The rest of your idea, though, are good and seem well thought out...
Personally, I don't like the idea of keeping messages in a database...
From experience, it is way too hard to guarantee good backups and thus
be sure that you will get a usable restore... Of course, that might
just be the product being restored...
Regards,
Gregory Hicks
For
> example, BerkeleyDB (http://www.sleepycat.com/)
>
[...snip...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609
555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479
San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks at cadence dot com
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
"The trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was."
When a team of dedicated individuals makes a commitment to act as
one... the sky's the limit.
Last updated on 5 Apr 2002 by Pensive Mailing List Admin