The qpopper list archive ending on 25 Apr 2002
Topics covered in this issue include:
1. Re: Bulletin does not start with a valid "From " separator
Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:31:43 -0400 (EDT)
2. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Kenneth Porter <shiva at well dot com>
18 Apr 2002 13:21:13 -0700
3. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Kelly Kane <kkane at CHS.CUSD.Claremont dot Edu>
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:24:09 -0700
4. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:35:10 -0700
5. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Kenneth Porter <shiva at well dot com>
18 Apr 2002 17:09:48 -0700
6. Re: REMOVE -- How to UNSUBSCRIBE YOURSELF.
Peter Evans <peter at gol dot com>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:20:11 +0900
7. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
James Sneeringer <james+qpopper at vincentsystems dot com>
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:15:59 -0500
8. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:50:14 +0200
9. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Jesus Cea Avion <jcea at argo dot es>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:22:17 +0200
10. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
11. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Eric Luyten <Eric.Luyten at vub.ac dot be>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:42:41 +0200 (MET DST)
12. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:07:42 -0400 (EDT)
13. RE: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Drew Weaver <drew.weaver at thenap dot com>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:45:23 -0400
14. MS Outlook or Outlook Express?
AA <aish at infinitum-global dot net>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:18:10 +0100 (BST)
15. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
16. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
17. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
"Michael D. Sofka" <sofkam at rpi dot edu>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:05:16 -0400
18. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
19. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
20. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:15:51 +0200
21. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:56:32 -0700
22. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:01:01 -1000
23. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:02:04 -0700
24. qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
rk at johanns-datentechnik dot de
22 Apr 2002 09:59:08 UT
25. Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:39:58 -0700
26. Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Oliver Fleischmann <ogf at bnv-bamberg dot de>
Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:49:10 +0200 (MEST)
27. Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:11:52 -0700
28. Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:13:33 -0700
29. Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Oliver Fleischmann <ogf at bnv-bamberg dot de>
Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:05:48 +0200 (MEST)
30. Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:06:31 -0700
31. cache files in qpopper server mode
Leonard Hermens <Leonard.Hermens at rcity dot com>
Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:49:18 -0700
32. MY POP3 client doesn't work with sendmail
AA <aish at infinitum-global dot net>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:00:16 +0100 (BST)
33. TLS shutdown Error [pop_tls_openssl.c:789]
"Mikael Chambon" <qpopper-ml at cronos dot org>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:23:26 +0200
34. Re: MY POP3 client doesn't work with sendmail
Chip Old <fold at bcpl dot net>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:46:12 -0400 (EDT)
35. PopAuth
Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:32:57 +0200
36. Re: PopAuth
Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:55:34 -0400
37. Re: PopAuth
Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:31:50 +0200
38. Re: PopAuth
Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:20:53 -0400
39. Re: PopAuth
Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:53:57 +0200
40. Compilation failure
Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:20:32 +0200
41. Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:57:31 -0700
42. Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Kelly Kane <kkane at CHS.CUSD.Claremont dot Edu>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:35:55 -0700
43. Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
Butch Kemper <kemper at tstar dot net>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:53:47 -0500
44. Re: Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
"Julian Y. Koh" <kohster at mac dot com>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:11:58 -0500
45. Re: Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:22:27 -0700
46. Re: Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
James Sneeringer <james+qpopper at vincentsystems dot com>
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:56:55 -0500
47. How to hide the banner
asekiga at jc4.so-net.ne dot jp
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:12:01 +0900
48. Re: How to hide the banner
"Alex M" <alex at myzona dot net>
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:22:21 -0700
49. Re: TLS shutdown Error [pop_tls_openssl.c:789]
"Mikael Chambon" <qpopper-ml at cronos dot org>
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:19:21 +0200
50. RE: How to hide the banner
"Kollaps" <kollaps at compulink dot gr>
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:50:49 +0300
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:31:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Subject: Re: Bulletin does not start with a valid "From " separator
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Clifton Royston wrote:
> Try instead:
> >From localhost!qpop Thu Apr 10 13:47:00 2002
And to confuse things further, single digit dates need to be padded:
>From localhost!qpop Wed Apr 9 13:47:00 2002
That got me a few times when playing with bulletins and _isn't_ in the FAQ.
AB
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
From: Kenneth Porter <shiva at well dot com>
Date: 18 Apr 2002 13:21:13 -0700
On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 01:08, Chad wrote:
> I'd thoroughly
> enjoy finding a way to throttle the James Bond crew
> from banging on qpopper with a dozen or more ID’s more
> than once every 5 minutes or so...
This leads me to question whether the block should be on user ID or on
IP address. The latter does have the disadvantage that it would unfairly
block multiple users behind a NAT'd address.
Also, I believe someone suggested that the throttle shouldn't kick in on
the first violation. Ideally, the throttle should be dynamic, kicking in
after bursts but not on a few isolated violations, allowing one to
manually check frequently a few times, or re-check immediately after an
unexpected connection drop. So the system needs a bit of hysteresis,
which requires some memory of the last few intervals.
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:24:09 -0700
From: Kelly Kane <kkane at CHS.CUSD.Claremont dot Edu>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
A problem you might see in changing the error message is that
Outlook doesn't display them. They display their own internally
generated messages. Although there may be a workaround like the error
404 -> "unable to display page" in IE, instead of the real error
page. (I think i saw altavista do it, it was quite amusing, because
if you read the source of the page, it has this big rant about IE :)
All your outlook users would probably see is something
cryptic ("POP3 can't check your email because of error 0x2498AFE3,
somethings hosed"). Letting the processes not close properly could
lead to inetd reaching is max process limits, or your system being
taxed for memory.
Kelly
At 4:58 PM -0400 4/17/02, Steve Perrault wrote:
>I'm dealing with the next order of magnitude of users, many checking
>every minute. We're logging 150-200 pop sessions/minute. However,
>this frequent checking (especially with LMOS) is more of an
>annoyance to ME than affecting anyone.
>
>I've considered modifying the qpopper source to keep the connection
>open for x minutes after the customer closes the session. I'd also
>change the pop lock error message to explain it (instead of the POP
>lock busy). However, any changes to customers will just get them
>calling in, regardless of how well I explain things in the error
>message. My poor tech support reps will be tied up:
>
>1) explaining why they can't check mail "like the always have"
>2) justifying our policy to the people who understand it
>3) spend x minutes waiting for pop sessions to time out after the
>customer attempts to check mail
>
>
>- SteveP
>
>At 03:24 PM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I was just wondering if anyone knew of a commonly used program used
>>in conjunction with Qpopper, or perhaps even a widely used patch,
>>that would enable me to limit the frequency with which users check
>>their mail. Currently there is no such limit, and believe it or
>>not many have their Eudora setup to autocheck every minute. This
>>is unacceptable with almost 2000 users per machine. Especially
>>considering that they regularly keep messages on server as well for
>>a period of at least 5 days. I know that I've seen other
>>institutions implement such restrictions, and you are sent an error
>>message via standard POP protocol it appears, which Eudora displays
>>in the status telling you you are checking mail too often. THis is
>>more than sufficient. Any help or recommendations would be GREATLY
>>appreciated. Thanks in advance.
>>
>>PS - The client getting the descriptive error message is by FAR the
>>most important thing, as to avoid unnecessary calls to our helpdesk
>>people.
>>
>>---
>>Tim Meader
>>ACS Government Services, Inc. - (301) 286-8013
>>tmeader at cne-odin.gsfc.nasa dot gov
--
Kelly Kane
Claremont Unified School District
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:35:10 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
At 3:24 PM -0400 4/16/02, Tim Meader wrote:
>many have their Eudora setup to autocheck every minute.
By the way, Windows Eudora has a hidden resource that puts a floor on
the auto mail check interval. It can be assigned to any integer
value. Sites can distribute it as a resource plug-in. Although this
allows users to simply delete the file to get around the limit, most
users wouldn't know how to do that, and a lot wouldn't bother.
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
From: Kenneth Porter <shiva at well dot com>
Date: 18 Apr 2002 17:09:48 -0700
On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 15:35, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 3:24 PM -0400 4/16/02, Tim Meader wrote:
>
> >many have their Eudora setup to autocheck every minute.
>
> By the way, Windows Eudora has a hidden resource that puts a floor on
> the auto mail check interval. It can be assigned to any integer
> value. Sites can distribute it as a resource plug-in. Although this
> allows users to simply delete the file to get around the limit, most
> users wouldn't know how to do that, and a lot wouldn't bother.
Where can one find documentation on this? How would an admin deploy
this?
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:20:11 +0900
From: Peter Evans <peter at gol dot com>
Subject: Re: REMOVE -- How to UNSUBSCRIBE YOURSELF.
It seems that people think that sending REMOVE to the list
gets them off somehow. In the days of olde, this would have
resulted in being subscribed to the mysterious ML-BOZOS list.
In every mail that this list sends out, there are magic headers.
Here are the ones for this message:
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:qpopper-request at lists.pensive dot org?body=subscribe>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:qpopper-request at lists.pensive dot org?body=unsubscribe>
note the different address. Administrative requests go to the server
software, at qpopper-request, _NOT_ the list.
> List-Archive: <http://www.pensive.org/mailing_lists/archives/qpopper/>
> List-Post: <mailto:qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
> List-Owner: Pensive Mailing List Admin <listmaster at lists.pensive dot org>
> List-Help: http://www.pensive.org/Mailing_Lists/
> List-Id: <QPopper.lists.pensive.org>
> List-Software: AutoShare 4.2.3 by Mikael Hansen
Next time, read the headers before posting Unsubscribe to the list.
Please! I don't want to have to resurrect ml-bozos specially for
you.
P
----*
--
END OF LINE.
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:15:59 -0500
From: James Sneeringer <james+qpopper at vincentsystems dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 02:24:09PM -0700, Kelly Kane wrote:
| All your outlook users would probably see is something
| cryptic ("POP3 can't check your email because of error 0x2498AFE3,
| somethings hosed"). Letting the processes not close properly could
| lead to inetd reaching is max process limits, or your system being
| taxed for memory.
Another problem no one has mentioned is the effect of login-delay on
"Webmail" users. The POP3 Web-based clients I've seen (not including
Java applets) tend to make a *lot* of connections to the POP3 server
in a short period of time.
I know, Webmail is a "use IMAP not POP3" case. Unfortunately, there
are a great many Web-based POP3 clients out there, and if Qpopper is
to have such a feature, it will need to deal with them gracefully.
-James
From: Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:50:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Hello folks,
I am not a huge proponent of keeping connections open. System resources
wise, that is asking for trouble.
But I am even far less a fan of limiting the frequency with which users
check their mail. It sounds great, at first glance, but is a System
Administrator's nightmare in the making. Steve, if you are worried about
customers calling in, wait until you start refusing connections as a
"throttle" measure. And they would actually be right, too; from the client
end, your server would simply appear broken -- that is, unless they check
for return codes, which you know they will not do. Their client software
may, or may not, show a legible reason for why mail cannot be retrieved, but
that is not for qpopper to assume that it will -- nor even for us to assume
that the user will then know how to interpret it. I would even go as far as
to say that the user will likely NOT no what to do, and will wind up writing
me, ten times a day, telling me the server is broken, and would I please fix
it.
As has been pointed out, UID's are cached. What one COULD do, for a client
who connects too soon after his last check, is to simply reply that he has
no new mail. You see, that is something that I could support (not that I
have a say in it, really, but just the thought.) From the server end,
qpopper would simply forego checking the mail for real, but in its
functionality towards the connecting client be fully transparent. To the
client it would just appear as not having new mail yet; no disconnect, no
firewall-like stumbling blocks; just qpopper reporting he has no new mail
yet. And the implementation thereof would be real simple too. Just one
per-UID ticker, which you reset at each connection; and you only really
check for mail when it has been, say, 5 mins after his latest check.
So, what I am proposing is a graceful early-out, instead of just an out.
Just my $.02,
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Kane" <kkane at CHS.CUSD.Claremont dot Edu>
To: "Steve Perrault" <sperraul at mnsi dot net>; "Subscribers of Qpopper"
<qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
> A problem you might see in changing the error message is that Outlook
> doesn't display them. They display their own internally generated
> messages. Although there may be a workaround like the error 404 ->
> "unable to display page" in IE, instead of the real error page. (I
> think i saw altavista do it, it was quite amusing, because if you read
> the source of the page, it has this big rant about IE :)
>
> All your outlook users would probably see is something cryptic ("POP3
> can't check your email because of error 0x2498AFE3, somethings hosed").
> Letting the processes not close properly could lead to inetd reaching
> is max process limits, or your system being taxed for memory.
>
> Kelly
>
> At 4:58 PM -0400 4/17/02, Steve Perrault wrote:
>
> > I'm dealing with the next order of magnitude of users, many checking
> > every minute. We're logging 150-200 pop sessions/minute. However,
> > this frequent checking (especially with LMOS) is more of an annoyance
> > to ME than affecting anyone.
> >
> > I've considered modifying the qpopper source to keep the connection
> > open for x minutes after the customer closes the session. I'd also
> > change the pop lock error message to explain it (instead of the POP
> > lock busy). However, any changes to customers will just get them
> > calling in, regardless of how well I explain things in the error
> > message. My poor tech support reps will be tied up:
> >
> > 1) explaining why they can't check mail "like the always have" 2)
> > justifying our policy to the people who understand it 3) spend x
> > minutes waiting for pop sessions to time out after the customer
> > attempts to check mail
> >
> > - SteveP
> >
> > At 03:24 PM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I was just wondering if anyone knew of a commonly used program used
> >> in conjunction with Qpopper, or perhaps even a widely used patch,
> >> that would enable me to limit the frequency with which users check
> >> their mail. Currently there is no such limit, and believe it or not
> >> many have their Eudora setup to autocheck every minute. This is
> >> unacceptable with almost 2000 users per machine. Especially
> >> considering that they regularly keep messages on server as well for
> >> a period of at least 5 days. I know that I've seen other
> >> institutions implement such restrictions, and you are sent an error
> >> message via standard POP protocol it appears, which Eudora displays
> >> in the status telling you you are checking mail too often. THis is
> >> more than sufficient. Any help or recommendations would be GREATLY
> >> appreciated. Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> PS - The client getting the descriptive error message is by FAR the
> >> most important thing, as to avoid unnecessary calls to our helpdesk
> >> people.
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Tim Meader ACS Government Services, Inc. - (301) 286-8013
> >> tmeader at cne-odin.gsfc.nasa dot gov
>
> --
>
> Kelly Kane Claremont Unified School District
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:22:17 +0200
From: Jesus Cea Avion <jcea at argo dot es>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
> many have their Eudora setup to autocheck every minute.
What about the following feature:
If Qpopper detects an user doing too much frequent mail checks, simply
reports "cero messages in the mailbolx" without checking the real thing.
So you only need to check user/password and the "frequent mail checker
offenders" database (data, for example, inside the ".cache" files).
This feature should have some kind of heuristic in order to detect
automatic checkings versus manual checks (if you are waiting for a very
important and urgent mail). You can check, for example, recents "time
betweeen mail checks", and if desviation is smaller than 20%, for
example, consider them as "automatic".
If you check is considered automatic, but time since last QPOPPER real
mailbox analisys is larger than the configured "minimun CHECK interval",
the do the real thing.
So, if you configure qpopper for a 10 minutes "minimun check interval",
and an user configures its email program for 1 minute checks, then,
qpopper will report "0 messages in mailbox" for 9 out of 10 checks.
If the user do a manual check, the time between checks will be modified,
qpopper detects the fact and do the real thing.
If your clients can leave mail on server, instead of "0 messages in
mailbox", returns the ".cache" content.
--
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, 19 Apr 2002 08:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Mark wrote:
> As has been pointed out, UID's are cached. What one COULD do, for a client
> who connects too soon after his last check, is to simply reply that he has
> no new mail.
Or drop a special bulletin in his inbox saying he's checkibng mail too often.
Given the flagrant behaviour of some packages regarding failure to
report actual error messages(*), this may be the only way out.
I have tried to contact a user popping excessively on several occasions.
The usual response is "yeah yeah" and then no change in behaviour.
(*) Eudora for Macintosh's "That Pesky TCP is acting up again" is less
than helpful, as a for-instance.
AB
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:42:41 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Eric Luyten <Eric.Luyten at vub.ac dot be>
> I have tried to contact a user popping excessively on several occasions.
> The usual response is "yeah yeah" and then no change in behaviour.
touch /var/mail/.<username>.pop works miracles
This practice is only resorted to if the user does not react to a
standard message containing instructions for Eudora en Outlook E.
within, say, a week.
Eric.
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:07:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Eric Luyten wrote:
> > I have tried to contact a user popping excessively on several occasions.
> > The usual response is "yeah yeah" and then no change in behaviour.
>
> touch /var/mail/.<username>.pop works miracles
In one case which springs to mind, the reaction was to change provider.
To be brutally honest, users who generate lots of helpdesk calls are
better off being handed off to a competitor, unless the helpdesk is on a
1-900.
AB
From: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver at thenap dot com>
Subject: RE: Need aid with checking mail too often...
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:45:23 -0400
We have what I call a certain 'line' of support, if the user crosses that
line we no longer care wether or not they keep their account with us.
-Drew
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Brown [mailto:alanb at digistar dot com]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:08 AM
To: Eric Luyten
Cc: Subscribers of Qpopper
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Eric Luyten wrote:
> > I have tried to contact a user popping excessively on several
> > occasions. The usual response is "yeah yeah" and then no change in
> > behaviour.
>
> touch /var/mail/.<username>.pop works miracles
In one case which springs to mind, the reaction was to change provider.
To be brutally honest, users who generate lots of helpdesk calls are better
off being handed off to a competitor, unless the helpdesk is on a 1-900.
AB
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:18:10 +0100 (BST)
From: AA <aish at infinitum-global dot net>
Subject: MS Outlook or Outlook Express?
Can anyone help me with setting up MS Outlook/Outlook
Express as a POP client? I'd also like to know which one is the most
compatible with qpopper.
Cheers.
Ayasha
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Alan Brown wrote:
>
> I have tried to contact a user popping excessively on several occasions.
> The usual response is "yeah yeah" and then no change in behaviour.
>
"wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder
anymore..you have to hit them with a sledge hammer..and then you'll notice
you've got their strict attention"
--Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Eric Luyten wrote:
>
> > > I have tried to contact a user popping excessively on several occasions.
> > > The usual response is "yeah yeah" and then no change in behaviour.
> >
> > touch /var/mail/.<username>.pop works miracles
>
> In one case which springs to mind, the reaction was to change provider.
>
> To be brutally honest, users who generate lots of helpdesk calls are
> better off being handed off to a competitor, unless the helpdesk is on a
> 1-900.
>
what always got me when i worked at an ISP, and which pops into my mind
when i heard the "no new mail" idea to this, is the lack of disclosure
with customers. not telling them what's going on. obscurity. that always
rubbed me the wrong way. It would seem to me if you were brutally honest
with people, and they dont understand why you're doing what you're doing,
or at least respect it, then do you really want them as your customer?
I'm sure the management people want to make themselves and the business
look omnipotent in respects to competition..but i vote for realism.
But..this is why i'd probably make a lousy marketer :-)
--Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:05:16 -0400
From: "Michael D. Sofka" <sofkam at rpi dot edu>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
At 08:50 AM 4/19/2002 +0200, Mark wrote:
>But I am even far less a fan of limiting the frequency with which users
>check their mail. It sounds great, at first glance, but is a System
>Administrator's nightmare in the making. Steve, if you are worried about
>customers calling in, wait until you start refusing connections as a
>"throttle" measure. And they would actually be right, too; from the client
>end, your server would simply appear broken -- that is, unless they check
>for return codes, which you know they will not do. Their client software
>may, or may not, show a legible reason for why mail cannot be retrieved, but
>that is not for qpopper to assume that it will -- nor even for us to assume
>that the user will then know how to interpret it. I would even go as far as
>to say that the user will likely NOT no what to do, and will wind up writing
>me, ten times a day, telling me the server is broken, and would I please fix
>it.
Yes, whatever action is taken it should not appear as an error on the
POP server. But, a 10 minute delay in receiving a message would,
for many of our users, be seen as an error. Of course, being a university,
our services are "free" to our users, at least in the sense that they are
not sent an itemized bill. As such, the performance demands are often
unreasonable.
>As has been pointed out, UID's are cached. What one COULD do, for a client
>who connects too soon after his last check, is to simply reply that he has
>no new mail. You see, that is something that I could support (not that I
>have a say in it, really, but just the thought.) From the server end,
>qpopper would simply forego checking the mail for real, but in its
>functionality towards the connecting client be fully transparent. To the
>client it would just appear as not having new mail yet; no disconnect, no
>firewall-like stumbling blocks; just qpopper reporting he has no new mail
>yet. And the implementation thereof would be real simple too. Just one
>per-UID ticker, which you reset at each connection; and you only really
>check for mail when it has been, say, 5 mins after his latest check.
I've considered this, and the .cache files makes it easy. Better, as some
have pointed out, is having some graduated mechanism, perhaps based
on mailbox size. If you keep an empty mailbox, you can check once a
minute--no big deal. If you never delete mail, then you can check once
an hour unless the load is high. At one time I ran a script which checked
the log file for pops, and enforced an average checking time. Say, 12/hour.
If you used those 12 in 12 minutes you needed to wait until your average
was back below threshold. In practice, this worked nicely since a reasonable
user could hit "check mail" a bunch of times when expecting a new message.
But, lets consider what the real problem is. The real problem is a protocol
and program which make checking large mailboxes frequently an expensive
operation. There is no reason for this. The .cache file has made the checks
less expensive, and the only problem now is that large mailboxes are still
too expensive. I've already suggested extending the cache mechanism to
reduce the cost of a large mailbox. Another idea is to amortize the cost,
by incurring it during delivery.
Consider, is there ever a good reason to parse the mbox? Is there ever a
good reason to re-write the mbox, except when messages are deleted?
What if the cache file where considered an index into the mbox, and
the local mail delivery program updated the cashe file when new messages
are delivered? Now, even a big mailbox with a new message is cheap,
except for disk space and a longer seek time. (Yes, this is a the DB
index into mail solution discussed recently, with the cache file serving
as the DB.)
The problem is not users who check mail every minute---they are simply
using the tools available. The problem is that the tools do not take
into consideration the stress placed on the back-end system. That system
was designed when email was small and infrequent. Now it is large and
frequent. Guess what, the Internet has been successful---more and more
people are using it for more and more things. At one time, that was
the goal! Well, be careful what you wish for, it may come true.
(Or course, better yet would be charging by the message, since users can
then decide if the cost is worth it, and administrators would have an incentive
to sell more, and larger messages. Alas, for some reason in the hyper-libertarian world
that is the Internet, this option is rarely mentioned, and less frequently
taken seriously :-)
Mike
P.S. Believe me, this is on my list. But, my list is very long and more
pressing "free" services need my immediate attention.
--
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Brown <alanb at digistar dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, The Little Prince wrote:
> > To be brutally honest, users who generate lots of helpdesk calls are
> > better off being handed off to a competitor, unless the helpdesk is on a
> > 1-900.
For clarification, I've had customers who called every time they had a
problem when 99% of the time it turned out their modem lead was
unplugged or someone had scrambled settings "and nobody has touched the
computer, so it must be your fault, you're the ISP".
> what always got me when i worked at an ISP, and which pops into my mind
> when i heard the "no new mail" idea to this, is the lack of disclosure
> with customers. not telling them what's going on. obscurity. that always
> rubbed me the wrong way.
Me too, hence the comment about popping a message stating that the
account is checking mail excessively often.
> It would seem to me if you were brutally honest
> with people, and they dont understand why you're doing what you're doing,
> or at least respect it, then do you really want them as your customer?
Personally, I don't. If 5% of users eat 95% of your resources (online
and helpline). I'm better off moving those to the opposition and having
them as cost sinks there than on my system.
> I'm sure the management people want to make themselves and the business
> look omnipotent in respects to competition..but i vote for realism.
I found my customers preferred being told the truth when things were
broken. The hardest part is getting staff to tell them that.
Of course, the users who are popping every minute (or 12-20 times/minute
for those ones running multiple pop accounts) never actually notice that
things are disabled and don't call up unless pop3 fails entirely for a
while.
AB
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: The Little Prince <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, The Little Prince wrote:
>
> > > To be brutally honest, users who generate lots of helpdesk calls are
> > > better off being handed off to a competitor, unless the helpdesk is on a
> > > 1-900.
>
> For clarification, I've had customers who called every time they had a
> problem when 99% of the time it turned out their modem lead was
> unplugged or someone had scrambled settings "and nobody has touched the
> computer, so it must be your fault, you're the ISP".
>
oh boy do i remember those people! the horror
--Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
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"
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
From: Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:15:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
From: "The Little Prince" <thelittleprince at asteroid-b612 dot org>
To: "Alan Brown" <alanb at digistar dot com>
Cc: "Eric Luyten" <Eric.Luyten at vub.ac dot be>; "Subscribers of Qpopper"
<qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
> what always got me when i worked at an ISP, and which pops into my mind
> when i heard the "no new mail" idea to this, is the lack of disclosure
> with customers. not telling them what's going on. obscurity. that
> always rubbed me the wrong way.
We must be looking at this from different angles. To me, the "no new mail"
idea has nothing to do with obscurity, let alone a deception of sorts, but
everything with how, and more to the point, "when" a system chooses to make
mail available.
The operative word being "available". There is no law, not even a moral one,
which says mail needs to be "available" the moment it is "present" on the
system. Equipping qpopper with a type of graceful throttle control is hardly
something I would call deceptive. In fact, I have set my sendmail, for
instance, to only accept a certain number of connections per second. Pretty
standard. Is it obscurity when my sendmail says it is unavailable for the
moment? Hardly. It is just my choice of saying, "Just because my mail server
is here, and running, does not mean I make it available to you whenever you
want, and in the amount that you want it." The latter, especially. Must be
the admin blood in me, but I like to run a tight ship. Clients can freely
partake of my services, but in a manner, and amount, of my choosing, not
theirs.
> It would seem to me if you were
> brutally honest with people, and they dont understand why you're doing
> what you're doing, or at least respect it, then do you really want them
> as your customer?
I do not see one exclude the other, even. I can write an FAQ, explain why
mail is only available every so many minutes, be as disclosing as possible,
and yet still not spew out error codes in qpopper. The latter is just
practical. Like I said, I already get email from people complaining if they
cannot connect even once -- even if the reason for that is clearly on their
side. I just do not want a qpopper throttle mechanism to show up as errors
on the client end.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:56:32 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
At 8:12 AM -0400 4/19/02, Alan Brown wrote:
>Given the flagrant behaviour of some packages regarding failure to
>report actual error messages(*), this may be the only way out.
>
>I have tried to contact a user popping excessively on several occasions.
>The usual response is "yeah yeah" and then no change in behaviour.
>
>
>(*) Eudora for Macintosh's "That Pesky TCP is acting up again" is less
>than helpful, as a for-instance.
Presumably the server would return a proper POP error, such as one
defined for this: "-ERR [LOGIN-DELAY]"; see
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/pop3-extension-mechanism>. A TCP
error would only be reported for connection failures, not explicit
POP errors.
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:01:01 -1000
From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr at lava dot net>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:15:59PM -0500, James Sneeringer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 02:24:09PM -0700, Kelly Kane wrote:
> | All your outlook users would probably see is something
> | cryptic ("POP3 can't check your email because of error 0x2498AFE3,
> | somethings hosed"). Letting the processes not close properly could
> | lead to inetd reaching is max process limits, or your system being
> | taxed for memory.
>
> Another problem no one has mentioned is the effect of login-delay on
> "Webmail" users. The POP3 Web-based clients I've seen (not including
> Java applets) tend to make a *lot* of connections to the POP3 server
> in a short period of time.
>
> I know, Webmail is a "use IMAP not POP3" case. Unfortunately, there
> are a great many Web-based POP3 clients out there, and if Qpopper is
> to have such a feature, it will need to deal with them gracefully.
It turns out, the more I've been digging into it, webmail is a "don't
use IMAP either" case. Essentially all the popular webmail packages
don't do persistent sessions, and if you think popper generates a lot
of load, wait til you have imapd firing up, loading the mailbox, and
terminating for *every* mouse click on the client.
-- 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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:02:04 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
At 5:09 PM -0700 4/18/02, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>Where can one find documentation on this? How would an admin deploy
>this?
I'm afraid documentation on this is hard to find. Here's what I have:
#define IDS_DISABLE_SAVE_PASSWORD 201
A boolean value that if turned on (i.e. "1") will not allow the user
to turn on the Save Password setting
#define IDS_MIN_MAIL_CHECK_INTERVAL 209
An integer value that enforces a minimum all check interval in minutes.
#define IDS_DISABLE_EDIT_RETURN_ADDRESS 210
A boolean value that if turned on (i.e. "1") will disable editing the
Return Address in the Options dialog.
#define IDS_REQUIRE_POP_LOGIN_TO_SEND 211
A boolean value that if turned on (i.e. "1") will require the user to
check mail before allowing it to send mail. This will ensure that
the X-Sender: header doesn't have "(Unverified)" in it.
You would need to create a resource-only DLL, so it requires a tool
that can edit resources. Microsoft's Visual Studio has such a
resource editor. You can make a copy of the existing Eudora32.dll
resource-only DLL, remove the resources in it, and then add the
specific string resources above that you are wanting to change (name
the resource the same as what is defined above, and make sure it is a
string resource). Name the file whatever you want, but give it a
.EPI extension (Eudora Plug-In). Place the .EPI file either in the
same directory as Eudora.exe or in the user's mail directory to take
affect.
From: rk at johanns-datentechnik dot de
Subject: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
Date: 22 Apr 2002 09:59:08 UT
HI!
Im running qpopper 4.03 on a linux box.
During fetching mail, my connection froze, and my mail server still
holds the lock file .user.pop.
No email can't be "popped" so far for this account (ok).. but when is it going to work again ?
Must I set up a cron job (which ??) to check lock files and correct them ?
Is there any kind of automatism build in in popper to correct this ?
Im running qopper from xinedt with ca. 1000 successfull pop's a day, config as follows...
service pop3
{
instances = 15
#log_on_success = HOST USERID DURATION EXIT
log_on_failure = RECORD
max_load = 2
per_source = 5
cps = 10 10
flags = REUSE NAMEINARGS NOLIBWRAP
socket_type = stream
protocol = tcp
wait = no
user = root
server = /usr/sbin/tcpd
server_args = /usr/sbin/popper -s
}
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:39:58 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Need aid with checking mail too often...
> #define IDS_MIN_MAIL_CHECK_INTERVAL 209
> An integer value that enforces a minimum all check interval in minutes.
> You would need to create a resource-only DLL, so it requires a tool
> that can edit resources. Microsoft's Visual Studio has such a
> resource editor. You can make a copy of the existing Eudora32.dll
> resource-only DLL, remove the resources in it, and then add the
> specific string resources above that you are wanting to change
> (name the resource the same as what is defined above, and make sure
> it is a string resource). Name the file whatever you want, but
> give it a .EPI extension (Eudora Plug-In). Place the .EPI file
> either in the same directory as Eudora.exe or in the user's mail
> directory to take affect.
Sorry, I misspoke.
Resource strings are only identified by numbers, so to set the mail
check floor, edit string #209 in the string table resource. The
setting is in terms of minutes, so to set it to 10 minutes, make the
string resource be the 2 character string "10".
It might be easier to start with the Esoteric.epi that is shipped
with Eudora in the ExtraStuff folder.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:49:10 +0200 (MEST)
From: Oliver Fleischmann <ogf at bnv-bamberg dot de>
Subject: Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
On 22 Apr 2002 rk at johanns-datentechnik dot de wrote:
> HI!
> Im running qpopper 4.03 on a linux box.
> During fetching mail, my connection froze, and my mail server still
> holds the lock file .user.pop.
> No email can't be "popped" so far for this account (ok).. but when is it going to work again ?
> Must I set up a cron job (which ??) to check lock files and correct them ?
We use a cron-job like:
5 * * * * /root/adm/bin/findpoplock
and a shell script:
---------- >O ----------
#!/bin/bash
#
# Steckengebliebene POP3-Locks finden
#
# 10.02.2002 ogf Auch Prozesse, die root gehoeren, werden gekillt
#
PFAD="/data/exim/mailboxes/"
TEMPFILE="/tmp/unlockpop.temp"
MONATE="Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec"
#
# Lockfiles aelter als $MAXAGE Minuten fuehren zur Alarmierung
# und spaeter evtl. zur automatischen Freigabe
#
MAXAGE=180
function unlockproc
{
for I in `find $PFAD -iname '.*pop' -amin +$MAXAGE`; do
KENNUNG=`echo "$I"|cut -b 23-28`
PROCESS=`ps aux|grep popper|grep "^$KENNUNG"|cut -b 10-14`
echo "Locked: $KENNUNG $PROCESS"
kill $PROCESS
/data/exim/bin/exim_lock /data/exim/mailboxes/$KENNUNG \
"cat /data/exim/mailboxes/$KENNUNG \
>> /data/exim/mailboxes/.$KENNUNG.pop ; \
mv /data/exim/mailboxes/.$KENNUNG.pop \
/data/exim/mailboxes/$KENNUNG ; \
chmod 600 /data/exim/mailboxes/$KENNUNG ; \
chown $1.mail /data/exim/mailboxes/$KENNUNG"
echo -e "\n\n"
done
for MON in $MONATE ; do
for PROCESS in `ps aux|grep popper|grep "^root"|grep \
"$MON[0-9][0-9] "|cut -b 5-14`; do
echo "Locked: root $PROCESS"
kill $PROCESS
echo -e "\n\n"
done
done
}
unlockproc >$TEMPFILE
if [ -s $TEMPFILE ]; then
cat $TEMPFILE | mail -s "chlothar: unlockpop" $POSTMASTER
fi
---------- >O ----------
> Is there any kind of automatism build in in popper to correct this ?
No.
Oliver
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:11:52 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
At 9:59 AM +0000 4/22/02, rk at johanns-datentechnik dot de wrote:
>Im running qpopper 4.03 on a linux box.
>During fetching mail, my connection froze, and my mail server still
>holds the lock file .user.pop.
That is not normal. Qpopper cleans up the temp file when it goes
away (unless it is killed and doesn't have a chance). Are you sure
there is no Qpopper process active for the user?
If you are sure there is no Qpopper process active, yet the .user.pop
file remains, then either the process was killed, or there is a bug
in Qpopper that fails to clean up under whatever circumstance caused
the session to end.
Can you reproduce this? Does it happen for all users?
One thing to try is to apply the patches that Clifton posted here recently.
>No email can't be "popped" so far for this account (ok).. but when
>is it going to work again ?
Qpopper automatically times out an old session, so have the user try
again in fifteen minutes, and all should be well. Qpopper will pick
up the mail from the .pop.temp file and use it, so nothing should be
lost.
>Must I set up a cron job (which ??) to check lock files and correct them ?
No, this is not required.
>Is there any kind of automatism build in in popper to correct this ?
Yes. Qpopper cleans up when it exits, and Qpopper reclaims locks
after a timeout.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:13:33 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
At 12:49 PM +0200 4/22/02, Oliver Fleischmann wrote:
> kill $PROCESS
Try sending a HUP signal instead of KILL. This should cause the
process to clean up and terminate on its own, and thus eliminate the
need to do anything with the temp files yourself.
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:05:48 +0200 (MEST)
From: Oliver Fleischmann <ogf at bnv-bamberg dot de>
Subject: Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 12:49 PM +0200 4/22/02, Oliver Fleischmann wrote:
>
> > kill $PROCESS
>
> Try sending a HUP signal instead of KILL. This should cause the
> process to clean up and terminate on its own, and thus eliminate the
> need to do anything with the temp files yourself.
It should, but it doesn't for me. HUP seems to be just ignored. But I
didn't check this with those signal handling patches. I think I should do
that...
Oliver
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:06:31 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
At 7:05 AM +0200 4/23/02, Oliver Fleischmann wrote:
> But I
> didn't check this with those signal handling patches. I think I should do
> that...
Yes, that would be a good idea.
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:49:18 -0700
From: Leonard Hermens <Leonard.Hermens at rcity dot com>
Subject: cache files in qpopper server mode
Hello,
We are struggling with cache files in server mode. The overview of the
issue: the cache files appear only if we do not enable alternate locations
for the files.
Our OS platform is Solaris 2.7 and 2.8
The cache files will show up in /var/mail when we run qpopper configured as:
./configure --enable-server-mode --enable-uw-kludge
but the cache files will not show up if we run qpopper configured as:
./configure --enable-server-mode --enable-uw-kludge \
--enable-temp-drop-dir=/var/mail/drop/ \
--enable-cache-dir=/var/mail/cache/
(We also tried without the trailing "/" on the path for each dir, too.)
Directory permissions are as follows:
ls -la /var/mail
total 10
drwxrwxrwt 5 root mail 512 Apr 23 16:30 .
drwxr-xr-x 32 root sys 512 Mar 25 10:48 ..
drwxrwxr-x 2 root mail 512 Mar 13 18:14 :saved
drwxrwxrwt 2 root mail 512 Apr 23 15:54 cache
drwxrwxrwt 2 root mail 512 Apr 23 16:30 drop
-rw-rw---- 1 testoid mail 0 Apr 23 15:40 testoid
Is it obvious what we are doing incorrectly? Any tips would be helpful.
Thanks much.
-- Leonard
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:00:16 +0100 (BST)
From: AA <aish at infinitum-global dot net>
Subject: MY POP3 client doesn't work with sendmail
I've successful set up qpopper4.0.4 on solaris 8, but when I use my POP3
client (MS Outlook) to send e-mails it doesn't work and I receive an error
concerning my SMTP server. The SMTP server is the same as the POP3
server.
Ayasha
From: "Mikael Chambon" <qpopper-ml at cronos dot org>
Subject: TLS shutdown Error [pop_tls_openssl.c:789]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:23:26 +0200
Hi,
I've installed qpopper with TLS support, it's working very well, but I 've
all the time
some errors in my logs:
============
Apr 24 13:23:46 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
(v4.0.4fc3) Unable to get canonical name of client 192.168.0.37: Unknown
host (1) [pop_init.c:1075]
Apr 24 13:23:46 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
(v4.0.4fc3) TLSv1/SSLv3 handshake with client at 192.168.0.37
(192.168.0.37); new session-id; cipher: RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5 SSLv3 Kx=RSA Au=RSA
Enc=RC4(128) Mac=MD5 ), 128 bits [pop_tls_openssl.c:514]
Apr 24 13:23:47 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
(v4.0.4fc3) POP login by user "toto" at (192.168.0.37) 192.168.0.37
[pop_log.c:244]
Apr 24 13:23:47 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
TLS shutdown Error [pop_tls_openssl.c:789]
=============
TLS shutdown Error : What does it mean ? Is it important ??
Thanks a lot guys,
--
Mikael Chambon
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:46:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chip Old <fold at bcpl dot net>
Subject: Re: MY POP3 client doesn't work with sendmail
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, AA wrote to Subscribers of Qpopper:
> I've successful set up qpopper4.0.4 on solaris 8, but when I use my POP3
> client (MS Outlook) to send e-mails it doesn't work and I receive an
> error concerning my SMTP server. The SMTP server is the same as the
> POP3 server.
What is the exact error message?
--
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: Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:32:57 +0200
Subject: PopAuth
Dear folks,
Currently, I am running qpopper version 3.1b5, and I very much like to
upgrade to 4.0.4. The original package (on my FreeBSD 4.1 system), was a
precompiled version with built-in PopAuth support (for sendmail).
As I will install it on a production machine, I really do not want to run
into unpleasant problems with the PopAuth stuff. But 4.0.4 I really like; it
will enable me to get rid of the current stunnel daemon I have running to
supply the SSL connections and such.
So, I was wondering whether I need to get a special package somewhere to add
PopAuth to the standard setup?
Thanks!
- Mark
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:55:34 -0400
From: Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Subject: Re: PopAuth
At 12:32 PM 4/24/02, Mark wrote:
>Dear folks,
>
>Currently, I am running qpopper version 3.1b5, and I very much like to
>upgrade to 4.0.4. The original package (on my FreeBSD 4.1 system), was a
>precompiled version with built-in PopAuth support (for sendmail).
>
>As I will install it on a production machine, I really do not want to run
>into unpleasant problems with the PopAuth stuff. But 4.0.4 I really like; it
>will enable me to get rid of the current stunnel daemon I have running to
>supply the SSL connections and such.
>
>So, I was wondering whether I need to get a special package somewhere to add
>PopAuth to the standard setup?
Not sure whose PopAuth stuff you're thinking of. I've submitted changes to
qpopper which haven't made a release yet for my POPDB capability, which
interfaces between qpopper and sendmail, permitting sendmail to
authenticate based on smtp-after-pop.
The functionality of PODB is similar to DRAC, but is intended to be used
only on the same server, and does NOT rely on the presence of RPC (which
DRAC requires).
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie dts at senie dot com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
From: Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:31:50 +0200
Subject: Re: PopAuth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Senie" <dts at senie dot com>
To: "Mark" <admin at asarian-host dot net>; "Subscribers of Qpopper"
<qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: PopAuth
> At 12:32 PM 4/24/02, Mark wrote:
>
> > Dear folks,
> >
> > Currently, I am running qpopper version 3.1b5, and I very much like
> > to upgrade to 4.0.4. The original package (on my FreeBSD 4.1 system),
> > was a precompiled version with built-in PopAuth support (for
> > sendmail).
> >
> > As I will install it on a production machine, I really do not want to
> > run into unpleasant problems with the PopAuth stuff. But 4.0.4 I
> > really like; it will enable me to get rid of the current stunnel
> > daemon I have running to supply the SSL connections and such.
> >
> > So, I was wondering whether I need to get a special package somewhere
> > to add PopAuth to the standard setup?
>
> Not sure whose PopAuth stuff you're thinking of. I've submitted changes
> to qpopper which haven't made a release yet for my POPDB capability,
> which interfaces between qpopper and sendmail, permitting sendmail to
> authenticate based on smtp-after-pop.
Yes, that's the PopAuth I was referring to. :) It is a bit confusing; both
sendmail and qpopper talk about PopAuth, but they mean two different things.
Now my qpopper writes IP addresses to a file called: /etc/mail/pophash, and
it contains plain-text entries, like:
24.219.48.194 OK
I use that for the pop-before-smtp feauture in sendmail. That's the package
I am looking for; does yours do that?
- Mark
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:20:53 -0400
From: Daniel Senie <dts at senie dot com>
Subject: Re: PopAuth
At 01:31 PM 4/24/02, Mark wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Daniel Senie" <dts at senie dot com>
>To: "Mark" <admin at asarian-host dot net>; "Subscribers of Qpopper"
><qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:55 PM
>Subject: Re: PopAuth
>
> > At 12:32 PM 4/24/02, Mark wrote:
> >
> > > Dear folks,
> > >
> > > Currently, I am running qpopper version 3.1b5, and I very much like
> > > to upgrade to 4.0.4. The original package (on my FreeBSD 4.1 system),
> > > was a precompiled version with built-in PopAuth support (for
> > > sendmail).
> > >
> > > As I will install it on a production machine, I really do not want to
> > > run into unpleasant problems with the PopAuth stuff. But 4.0.4 I
> > > really like; it will enable me to get rid of the current stunnel
> > > daemon I have running to supply the SSL connections and such.
> > >
> > > So, I was wondering whether I need to get a special package somewhere
> > > to add PopAuth to the standard setup?
> >
> > Not sure whose PopAuth stuff you're thinking of. I've submitted changes
> > to qpopper which haven't made a release yet for my POPDB capability,
> > which interfaces between qpopper and sendmail, permitting sendmail to
> > authenticate based on smtp-after-pop.
>
>
>Yes, that's the PopAuth I was referring to. :) It is a bit confusing; both
>sendmail and qpopper talk about PopAuth, but they mean two different things.
>Now my qpopper writes IP addresses to a file called: /etc/mail/pophash, and
>it contains plain-text entries, like:
>
>24.219.48.194 OK
Does it create a text file, or a hash file? Mine creates a hash database,
so that sendmail can read it directly. The popdb program is run from
qpopper when a user authenticates, and also runs from crontab every 10
minutes to flush exired entries from the hash database. It's fairly efficient.
>I use that for the pop-before-smtp feauture in sendmail. That's the package
>I am looking for; does yours do that?
yes. As does DRAC.
>- Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie dts at senie dot com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
From: Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:53:57 +0200
Subject: Re: PopAuth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Senie" <dts at senie dot com>
To: "Mark" <admin at asarian-host dot net>; "Subscribers of Qpopper"
<qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
> > Yes, that's the PopAuth I was referring to. :) It is a bit confusing;
> > both sendmail and qpopper talk about PopAuth, but they mean two
> > different things. Now my qpopper writes IP addresses to a file
> > called: /etc/mail/pophash, and it contains plain-text entries, like:
> >
> > 24.219.48.194 OK
>
> Does it create a text file, or a hash file? Mine creates a hash
> database, so that sendmail can read it directly. The popdb program is
> run from qpopper when a user authenticates, and also runs from crontab
> every 10 minutes to flush exired entries from the hash database. It's
> fairly efficient.
It creates a hash file from the plain-text (pophash.db). So, it seems I am
getting close. That popdb program, is it part of the qpopper compilation, or
do I need to get it somewhere?
BTW, I got the Qpopper to compile properly now; so disregard my last email
on the compilation problem. I compiled it with the --enable-low-debug
option, tested it, and it actually works. :) Well, the SSL over port 8765
did not work yet, but that's another matter. Right now I am focussed on
ensuring that my pop-before-smtp will not break.
Thanks for the advice so far,
- Mark
From: Mark <admin at asarian-host dot net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:20:32 +0200
Subject: Compilation failure
Darn,
The compilation fails. :( I compiled qpopper 4.0.4 (on my FreeBSD 4.1) as
follows:
../configure --enable-log-login --enable-log-facility=mail.crit --enable-stan
dalone --disable-server-mode --enable-specialauth --disable-timing
This is the result:
cd ./popper && make all
gcc -c -I.. -I.. -I. -I../mmangle -I../common -g -O2 -freg-struct-return
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DFREEBSD -DUNIX pop_dele.c -o pop_dele.o
gcc -c -I.. -I.. -I. -I../mmangle -I../common -g -O2 -freg-struct-return
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DFREEBSD -DUNIX pop_dropcopy.c -o pop_dropcopy.o
gcc -c -I.. -I.. -I. -I../mmangle -I../common -g -O2 -freg-struct-return
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DFREEBSD -DUNIX pop_get_command.c -o pop_get_command.o
gcc -c -I.. -I.. -I. -I../mmangle -I../common -g -O2 -freg-struct-return
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DFREEBSD -DUNIX pop_get_subcommand.c -o
pop_get_subcommand.o
gcc -c -I.. -I.. -I. -I../mmangle -I../common -g -O2 -freg-struct-return
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DFREEBSD -DUNIX pop_init.c -o pop_init.o
pop_init.c: In function `pop_init':
pop_init.c:658: `mail' undeclared (first use in this function)
pop_init.c:658: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
pop_init.c:658: for each function it appears in.)
*** Error code 1
Any suggestions?
- Mark
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:57:31 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
At 11:35 AM -0700 4/24/02, Kelly Kane wrote:
> At 12:06 PM -0700 4/23/02, Randall Gellens wrote:
>> At 7:05 AM +0200 4/23/02, Oliver Fleischmann wrote:
>>
>>> But I
>>> didn't check this with those signal handling patches. I think I should do
>>> that...
>>
>> Yes, that would be a good idea.
>
> I thought that HUP generally (from my Linux/BSD exp.) was handled
> as a method to tell a process to rehash it's config file, and
> gracefully restart itself?
I think officially it's "hangup", meaning the dial-up modem
connection with the user was disconnected (the phone hung up). In
the case of non-interactive daemon processes where there is no
connection to a user, that sense of course doesn't apply, so it
became a convenient way to tell the process to re-read its
configuration file. In Qpopper's case, there is a communication link
to the user, and Qpopper does get a HUP signal when this goes away
(on some flavors of Unix anyway), so Qpopper handles HUP by cleaning
up and going away.
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:35:55 -0700
From: Kelly Kane <kkane at CHS.CUSD.Claremont dot Edu>
Subject: Re: qpopper4.03 lock file - how to remove ?
At 12:06 PM -0700 4/23/02, Randall Gellens wrote:
>At 7:05 AM +0200 4/23/02, Oliver Fleischmann wrote:
>
>> But I
>> didn't check this with those signal handling patches. I think I should do
>> that...
>
>Yes, that would be a good idea.
I thought that HUP generally (from my Linux/BSD exp.) was handled as
a method to tell a process to rehash it's config file, and gracefully
restart itself? kill -15 (TERM) are what i always use to make
software stop going, and is catchable, so it is handled to "stop
working immediatly, but clean up on your way out".
Kelly
--
Kelly Kane
Claremont Unified School District
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:53:47 -0500
From: Butch Kemper <kemper at tstar dot net>
Subject: Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
The manual description of how qpopper 4.04 functions with the
"reverse-lookup" option and how it actually works do not agree.
The manual states "reverse-lookup = false" is the same as the "-R" command
line option. "-R" stops qpopper from doing reverse lookups.
I have found that when "reverse-lookup = false" that qpopper performs
reverse lookups and that when "reverse-lookup = true" that qpopper does not
perform reverse lookups.
Butch
TSTAR Internet, Inc | Making the Net Work
Marble Falls, TX | Serving Blanco, Burnet,
830-693-6967 | Llano, and Mason Counties
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:11:58 -0500
From: "Julian Y. Koh" <kohster at mac dot com>
Subject: Re: Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 13:53 -0500 04/24/2002, Butch Kemper wrote:
>I have found that when "reverse-lookup = false" that qpopper performs
>reverse lookups and that when "reverse-lookup = true" that qpopper does not
>perform reverse lookups.
Heh. Sounds like a lot of the x-eudora-settings options.
"Setting reversed; use 'n' for ON, 'y' for OFF!"
:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.3
Comment: <http://charlotte.at.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html>
iQA/AwUBPMctrg5UB5zJHgFjEQJhpQCcDtqdPCFLEMduSRCpLbOvl7e02U4AnAh2
m27ejjjiIRxWKTne8MzARJyw
=UE+4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Julian Y. Koh
kohster at mac dot com
PGP Public Key:<http://charlotte.at.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:22:27 -0700
From: Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm dot com>
Subject: Re: Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
At 1:53 PM -0500 4/24/02, Butch Kemper wrote:
> I have found that when "reverse-lookup = false" that qpopper
> performs reverse lookups and that when "reverse-lookup = true" that
> qpopper does not perform reverse lookups.
The code looks to be wrong. I hope fixing it doesn't mess anyone up
who figured out how it works now.
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:56:55 -0500
From: James Sneeringer <james+qpopper at vincentsystems dot com>
Subject: Re: Qpopper 4.04 "reverse-lookup" Option
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:22:27PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
| At 1:53 PM -0500 4/24/02, Butch Kemper wrote:
| > I have found that when "reverse-lookup = false" that qpopper
| >performs reverse lookups and that when "reverse-lookup = true" that
| >qpopper does not perform reverse lookups.
|
| The code looks to be wrong. I hope fixing it doesn't mess anyone up
| who figured out how it works now.
The code is wrong. The manual states that -R (the command line
equivalent) has a reversed sense... that is, -R turns off reverse
lookup. The "reverse-lookup = yes" command is identical, which is
to say it's just named poorly.
I patched this on my system to change the name to "no-reverse-lookup",
thus avoiding any actual coding. :)
-James
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:12:01 +0900
From: asekiga at jc4.so-net.ne dot jp
Subject: How to hide the banner
Hi All,
I am running Qpopper-3.0 on Solaris.
Only a few days ago, I was pointed out to hide the banner (= +OK QPOP (version 3.0))
by a security company.
If you know the easy method to do, tell me please.
Thanks in advance.
Ai
From: "Alex M" <alex at myzona dot net>
Subject: Re: How to hide the banner
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:22:21 -0700
Hello,
You should recompile qpopper with the --enable-shy option. Not sure if you
can do it run-time (w/o recompiling) thou.
----- Original Message -----
From: <asekiga at jc4.so-net.ne dot jp>
To: "Subscribers of Qpopper" <qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:12 AM
Subject: How to hide the banner
> Hi All,
>
> I am running Qpopper-3.0 on Solaris.
> Only a few days ago, I was pointed out to hide the banner (= +OK QPOP
(version 3.0))
> by a security company.
>
> If you know the easy method to do, tell me please.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Ai
>
From: "Mikael Chambon" <qpopper-ml at cronos dot org>
Subject: Re: TLS shutdown Error [pop_tls_openssl.c:789]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:19:21 +0200
So ?? Nobody knows about this error ??
--
Mikael Chambon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikael Chambon" <qpopper-ml at cronos dot org>
To: "Subscribers of Qpopper" <qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: TLS shutdown Error [pop_tls_openssl.c:789]
> Hi,
>
> I've installed qpopper with TLS support, it's working very well, but I 've
> all the time
> some errors in my logs:
>
> ============
> Apr 24 13:23:46 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
> (v4.0.4fc3) Unable to get canonical name of client 192.168.0.37: Unknown
> host (1) [pop_init.c:1075]
>
> Apr 24 13:23:46 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
> (v4.0.4fc3) TLSv1/SSLv3 handshake with client at 192.168.0.37
> (192.168.0.37); new session-id; cipher: RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5 SSLv3 Kx=RSA
Au=RSA
> Enc=RC4(128) Mac=MD5 ), 128 bits [pop_tls_openssl.c:514]
>
> Apr 24 13:23:47 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
> (v4.0.4fc3) POP login by user "toto" at (192.168.0.37) 192.168.0.37
> [pop_log.c:244]
>
> Apr 24 13:23:47 mail /usr/local/sbin/popper[2429]:
> TLS shutdown Error [pop_tls_openssl.c:789]
> =============
>
> TLS shutdown Error : What does it mean ? Is it important ??
>
> Thanks a lot guys,
>
> --
> Mikael Chambon
>
>
Subject: RE: How to hide the banner
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:50:49 +0300
From: "Kollaps" <kollaps at compulink dot gr>
You must start the procedure of compiling qpopper again , and when you
configure you must use the "--enable-shy" option and after "make" and
"make install" restart the qpopper
Regards
----- Original Message -----
From: <asekiga at jc4.so-net.ne dot jp>
To: "Subscribers of Qpopper" <qpopper at lists.pensive dot org>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:12 AM
Subject: How to hide the banner
> Hi All,
>
> I am running Qpopper-3.0 on Solaris.
> Only a few days ago, I was pointed out to hide the banner (= +OK
QPOP
(version 3.0))
> by a security company.
>
> If you know the easy method to do, tell me please.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Ai
>
Last updated on 25 Apr 2002 by Pensive Mailing List Admin