Re: The mailq service

[mea@nic.funet.fi]

> On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 mea@nic.funet.fi wrote:
> 
> > > which also didn't work. So, I tried yet different solution - I added the
> > > mailq service to /etc/inetd.conf and restarted inetd. As it was to be
> > > expected, inetd refused to service this port since the socket was already
> > > in use by zmailer. I'm running Zmailer 2.99.50-s5.
> > 
> > Yes, but you didn't configure your ZMailer with  --with-tcp-wrappers
> I did. I used the Red Hat spec file for zmailer which has it by default.

  Sorry, we were interleaving two question/reply exchanges, thus
  you (and I) became to repeat question, and answers..

> > parameter ?   If you did, was it able to find <tcpd.h> file ?
> Yes it was. 
> 
> > How about -lwrap ?
> Linked in.

Then I can think of only a tcp-wrapper usage snafu:

Perhaps you have an  "ALL: ALL@ALL" entry in the  hosts.allow  in
addition to specific  "mailq : all@1.2.3.0" ?

The thing is, tcp-wrapper does not work in 'first match only' basis,
rather it scans thru the file to do 'any match' (to allow/deny)
Or at least the way the ZMailer uses it is 'any match'.

> > In 3.* series the 'mailq' protocol will be modified so that nobody
> > gets in to do queries/administer without proper per-user authenticator.
>
> Excellent! Speaking of features. Is there anything in the plans about
> adding any capability for the pop3/imap servers to use zmailer aliases (I
> mean other than modifying them to read the databases directly)?

Depends on what you want to do with such co-working ?
What would be the benefit of having the aliases accessible to the
pop3/imap servers ?

Although, my initial reaction on this was: "layering violation"
(Message-store access protocols have nothing to do with the message
 transport systems.)

/Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>