webadmin-list — Webmin users mailing list

Re: [webmin-l] Webmin webinar

[Doc S. <do...@ma...>]

Jamie Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 09:54, boricua wrote:
>> On 05 Dec 2005 09:44:11 +1100
>> Jamie Cameron <jca...@we...> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> Open Country, with myself, is sponsoring a webminar on 'Webmin Future
>>> Directions'. Two sessions will be held: the first at 1:00 - 2:00 PM PST
>>> and the other 4:00-5:00 PM PST.
>>
>> the press release and this email fail to say location, where is this being held?
> 
> On the web, at www.webex.com :-)
> It's not an actual physical seminar ..
> 
>  - Jamie

I never heard how your webinar did Jamie... I was not able to attend had 
some other commitments.

-- 
-Doc
Lincoln, NE.

Re: [webmin-l] user module

[Freddie C. <fca...@sd...>]

> when i create i user via webmin/user mdoule it is not createting the
> file in /var/spool/mail/  for the user's mailbox.

> any hints if there is a config option

Every Unix-like system I've used over the past 5 years, and every MTA
I've used, will auto-create that file for you when the first e-mail
arrives.

Depending on the MTA you use, that file may not even be needed (for
instance, any MTA that uses Maildir style mailboxes won't touch
/var/spool/mail or /var/mail).

IOW, this really isn't an issue.  :)
--=20
Freddie Cash, LPIC-1 CCNT CCLP        Helpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73                    (250) 377-HELP [377-4357]
fc...@sd...                      hel...@sd...

Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 10:32, Victor Trac wrote:
> Jamie,
> To me it seems as though mail_search.cgi and view_mail.cgi runs the
> shell hostname process.  It is this hostname process that is taking
> 100%.  After a week or so, if I don't manually kill the hostname
> processes, I'll have 4-5 processes all competing for 100% CPU.  What
> could be causing this?  Is Webmin waiting for results from /bin/sh -c
> (hostname) but never getting anything?  Perhaps my system isn't
> properly configured in some way?

It looks like that may be the case.. the hostname program certainly
shouldn't take up so much CPU time, as it really doesn't do anything!

One work-around is to set the hostname explicitly in Webmin so that it
doesn't need to be looked up, which can be done in the Webmin
Configuration module on the User Interface page.

 - Jamie

> If it helps, I am running Gentoo (AMD64 SMP) and Webmin 1.250.  I
> think it started when I upgraded to Webmin 1.230, and I was hoping
> 1.250 would fix it, but it hasn't.  I also upgraded some other
> packages around the time of 1.230 as well, so I can't isolate that it
> is being caused by Webmin.
> 
> Thanks,
> Victor
> 
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 9:06:00 1100, Jamie Cameron <jca...@we...> wrote:
> > Hi Victor,
> > So is it the hostname process that is using up all the CPU time, or Webmin's mail_search.cgi script? The hostname command is just called to get the system's name to display at the top (or bottom) of the page, but really shouldn't be taking much time to run ..
> >
> > The mail_search.cgi script however could take a while, especially for a huge mailbox or if it has a bug :-) What size mail file are you trying to search there?
> >
> >  - Jamie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From:  Victor Trac <vic...@gm...>
> > Subj:  Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)
> > Date:  Mon 19 Dec 2005 8:14 am
> > Size:  1K
> > To:  web...@li...
> >
> > Sorry, I guess it was hard to tell from my email, but I followed the
> > parent PID of the shell processes and found that they were started by
> > /usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi, which was launched by
> > /usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf.  This
> > correlates with the webmin mail reader timing out when I'm reading
> > mail.  It only happens when I (or someone else on my box) is using
> > webmin to read email.
> >
> >
> > > ----
> > > It might be helpful to find out which processes are causing the race
> > > conditions and I use top for that. In your case, it's possible that it
> > > isn't the shell process but something occurring within the shell.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> > > for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > > searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> > > -
> > > Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> > > To remove yourself from this list, go to
> > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> > for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&opÌk
> > -
> > Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> > To remove yourself from this list, go to
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> >
> > --- message truncated ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> > for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> > -
> > Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> > To remove yourself from this list, go to
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> >
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&opÌk
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)

[Victor T. <vic...@gm...>]

Jamie,
To me it seems as though mail_search.cgi and view_mail.cgi runs the
shell hostname process.  It is this hostname process that is taking
100%.  After a week or so, if I don't manually kill the hostname
processes, I'll have 4-5 processes all competing for 100% CPU.  What
could be causing this?  Is Webmin waiting for results from /bin/sh -c
(hostname) but never getting anything?  Perhaps my system isn't
properly configured in some way?

If it helps, I am running Gentoo (AMD64 SMP) and Webmin 1.250.  I
think it started when I upgraded to Webmin 1.230, and I was hoping
1.250 would fix it, but it hasn't.  I also upgraded some other
packages around the time of 1.230 as well, so I can't isolate that it
is being caused by Webmin.

Thanks,
Victor

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 9:06:00 1100, Jamie Cameron <jca...@we...> wrote=
:
> Hi Victor,
> So is it the hostname process that is using up all the CPU time, or Webmi=
n's mail_search.cgi script? The hostname command is just called to get the =
system's name to display at the top (or bottom) of the page, but really sho=
uldn't be taking much time to run ..
>
> The mail_search.cgi script however could take a while, especially for a h=
uge mailbox or if it has a bug :-) What size mail file are you trying to se=
arch there?
>
>  - Jamie
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From:  Victor Trac <vic...@gm...>
> Subj:  Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)
> Date:  Mon 19 Dec 2005 8:14 am
> Size:  1K
> To:  web...@li...
>
> Sorry, I guess it was hard to tell from my email, but I followed the
> parent PID of the shell processes and found that they were started by
> /usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi, which was launched by
> /usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf.  This
> correlates with the webmin mail reader timing out when I'm reading
> mail.  It only happens when I (or someone else on my box) is using
> webmin to read email.
>
>
> > ----
> > It might be helpful to find out which processes are causing the race
> > conditions and I use top for that. In your case, it's possible that it
> > isn't the shell process but something occurring within the shell.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log =
files
> > for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7637&alloc_id=3D16865&op=3Dclick
> > -
> > Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...=
.net
> > To remove yourself from this list, go to
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id=16865&op=CCk
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li....n=
et
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>
> --- message truncated ---
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7637&alloc_id=3D16865&op=3Dclick
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li....n=
et
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Backup and Restore Problem

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

My mistake, you are correct ...
I have just released version 2.610, which contains the fix for this
problem.

 - Jamie

On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 19:28, Hamid Hashemi wrote:
> yep, I am using 2.609 and the problem was exist there.
> 
> Jamie Cameron wrote:
> 
> >On 18/Dec/2005 11:55 Hamid Hashemi wrote ..
> >  
> >
> >>Hi ,
> >>
> >>In the virtualmin when I try to backup a host and then restore it on 
> >>another server with "*Re-allocate UIDs and GID" *set as Yes the whole 
> >>things working great expect the "SuexecUserGroup" in apache virtualhost
> >>which is not change to the new UID and GID which assigned by the new 
> >>server. I think this is a bug and should fix in the next release.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Are you using Virtualmin 2.609 there? This problem was reported to me a while
> >back, but I am pretty sure I fixed it in the latest release already ..
> >
> > - Jamie
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> >for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> >searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> >http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> >-
> >Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> >To remove yourself from this list, go to
> >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> >
> >  
> >

[webmin-l] bind doesn't update slave & SPF

[Unknown Q. <web...@un...>]

Hi Jamie

i just wanted to highlight the 2 Bind problems i've spotted & mentioned in 
my previous post
just in case you missed it when John was explaining the merits (or not) of 
using SPF records

when i create or update a Master Bind record on server 1 and include an SFP 
record
that SPF / TXT record does NOT get sent across to / updated on the Slave 
Bind record on server 2

the 2nd thing i spotted was that the drop down box you use to create an SPF 
record
https://MasterIP:10000/bind8/edit_recs.cgi?index=NNN&view=&type=SPF
says
Disallow (~all)
i think this should say DISCOURAGE



>> ~all = Discouraged; mail may legitimately originate
>> from IP addresses not identified above, however,
>> use of such IP addresses is discouraged and may
>> not be permitted in the future.


Regards

Martyn 

Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

Hi Victor,
So is it the hostname process that is using up all the CPU time, or Webmin's mail_search.cgi script? The hostname command is just called to get the system's name to display at the top (or bottom) of the page, but really shouldn't be taking much time to run ..

The mail_search.cgi script however could take a while, especially for a huge mailbox or if it has a bug :-) What size mail file are you trying to search there?

 - Jamie

-----Original Message-----

From:  Victor Trac <vic...@gm...>
Subj:  Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)
Date:  Mon 19 Dec 2005 8:14 am
Size:  1K
To:  web...@li...

Sorry, I guess it was hard to tell from my email, but I followed the
parent PID of the shell processes and found that they were started by
/usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi, which was launched by
/usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf.  This
correlates with the webmin mail reader timing out when I'm reading
mail.  It only happens when I (or someone else on my box) is using
webmin to read email.


> ----
> It might be helpful to find out which processes are causing the race
> conditions and I use top for that. In your case, it's possible that it
> isn't the shell process but something occurring within the shell.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&opÌk
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

--- message truncated ---

Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)

[Victor T. <vic...@gm...>]

Sorry, I guess it was hard to tell from my email, but I followed the
parent PID of the shell processes and found that they were started by
/usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi, which was launched by
/usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf.  This
correlates with the webmin mail reader timing out when I'm reading
mail.  It only happens when I (or someone else on my box) is using
webmin to read email.


> ----
> It might be helpful to find out which processes are causing the race
> conditions and I use top for that. In your case, it's possible that it
> isn't the shell process but something occurring within the shell.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi=
les
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7637&alloc_id=3D16865&op=3Dclick
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li....n=
et
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>

Re: [webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 18:48 +0100, Victor Trac wrote:
> A few weeks ago (I think after a webmin upgrade) I started noticing
> there were processes that were taking up 100% CPU time.  I took the
> output from top:
> 
> 21093 root      25   0  4436  588  452 R 99.3  0.0 698:00.55 sh
> 23993 root      25   0  4440  592  452 R 59.6  0.0 463:17.77 sh
> 21757 root      25   0  4436  592  452 R 41.7  0.0 761:26.08 sh
> 
> then:
> 
> mercury ~ # ps -f 21093; ps -f 23993; ps -f 21757
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     21093 21006 70 Dec11 ?        R    698:25 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     23993 23922 50 Dec11 ?        R    463:30 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     21757 21754 78 Dec11 ?        R    761:38 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
> mercury ~ # ps -f 21006; ps -f 23922; ps -f 21754
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     21006 18691  0 Dec11 ?        S      0:00
> /usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     23922 18691  0 Dec11 ?        S      0:00
> /usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     21754 18691  0 Dec11 ?        S      0:00
> /usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi
> mercury ~ # ps -f 18691
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     18691     1  0 Dec11 ?        Ss     0:00 /usr/bin/perl
> /usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf
> 
> I killed those offending processes, and remembered that earlier in the
> day I was reading my mail through webmin, and the search function was
> just stalling.  It would sit there a while but not actually return any
> results.  The very next day, I noticed it was happening again:
> 
> mercury ~ # ps -f 4080
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root      4080  4067 97 Dec12 ?        R    1104:56 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
> mercury ~ # ps -f 4067
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root      4067 18691  0 Dec12 ?        S      0:00
> /usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/view_mail.cgi
> mercury ~ # ps -f 18691
> UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
> root     18691     1  0 Dec11 ?        Ss     0:00 /usr/bin/perl
> /usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf
> 
> Why is it running /bin/sh -c (hostname) and why is it hanging there at
> 100% CPU?  Has anyone experienced anything like this?  It seems as
> though a sh process spawns every other day or so, and is directly
> related to me using webmin to read my mail.  Any insight would be
> greatly appreciated, as right now I just have to log into the server
> every day and manually kill any sh processes.
----
It might be helpful to find out which processes are causing the race
conditions and I use top for that. In your case, it's possible that it
isn't the shell process but something occurring within the shell.

Craig

Re: [webmin-l] DG MODULE

[Adam K. <ake...@ni...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

If you are using DG version 2.8 or higher, then look under the "Edit
Groups" section of the module.

boricua wrote:
> DOES NOT show all the files under view/edit files.
> 
> i cant edit from there the bannedsite file 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list


- --
Adam Kennedy
Lead Developer for Digital Crossing Guard
A Product of Northern Indiana ESC
Linux Specialist / Network Administrator
Phone: (574) 254-5210
Toll Free: 866-254-5322
Fax: (574) 254-0148
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDpaWYV72KWYU3lA0RAoy9AJ47fIoJWnSXNe4sVOID7NoTvWRYEACgnGfj
kEfk9KW+yN+eRbq+dHpXqxw=
=6DIH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[webmin-l] /bin/sh -c (hostname)

[Victor T. <vic...@gm...>]

A few weeks ago (I think after a webmin upgrade) I started noticing
there were processes that were taking up 100% CPU time.  I took the
output from top:

21093 root      25   0  4436  588  452 R 99.3  0.0 698:00.55 sh
23993 root      25   0  4440  592  452 R 59.6  0.0 463:17.77 sh
21757 root      25   0  4436  592  452 R 41.7  0.0 761:26.08 sh

then:

mercury ~ # ps -f 21093; ps -f 23993; ps -f 21757
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     21093 21006 70 Dec11 ?        R    698:25 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     23993 23922 50 Dec11 ?        R    463:30 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     21757 21754 78 Dec11 ?        R    761:38 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
mercury ~ # ps -f 21006; ps -f 23922; ps -f 21754
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     21006 18691  0 Dec11 ?        S      0:00
/usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     23922 18691  0 Dec11 ?        S      0:00
/usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     21754 18691  0 Dec11 ?        S      0:00
/usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/mail_search.cgi
mercury ~ # ps -f 18691
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     18691     1  0 Dec11 ?        Ss     0:00 /usr/bin/perl
/usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf

I killed those offending processes, and remembered that earlier in the
day I was reading my mail through webmin, and the search function was
just stalling.  It would sit there a while but not actually return any
results.  The very next day, I noticed it was happening again:

mercury ~ # ps -f 4080
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root      4080  4067 97 Dec12 ?        R    1104:56 /bin/sh -c (hostname)
mercury ~ # ps -f 4067
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root      4067 18691  0 Dec12 ?        S      0:00
/usr/libexec/webmin/mailboxes/view_mail.cgi
mercury ~ # ps -f 18691
UID        PID  PPID  C STIME TTY      STAT   TIME CMD
root     18691     1  0 Dec11 ?        Ss     0:00 /usr/bin/perl
/usr/libexec/webmin/miniserv.pl /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf

Why is it running /bin/sh -c (hostname) and why is it hanging there at
100% CPU?  Has anyone experienced anything like this?  It seems as
though a sh process spawns every other day or so, and is directly
related to me using webmin to read my mail.  Any insight would be
greatly appreciated, as right now I just have to log into the server
every day and manually kill any sh processes.

[webmin-l] DG MODULE

[boricua <bo...@de...>]

DOES NOT show all the files under view/edit files.

i cant edit from there the bannedsite file 

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Backup and Restore Problem

[Hamid H. <ha...@mo...>]

yep, I am using 2.609 and the problem was exist there.

Jamie Cameron wrote:

>On 18/Dec/2005 11:55 Hamid Hashemi wrote ..
>  
>
>>Hi ,
>>
>>In the virtualmin when I try to backup a host and then restore it on 
>>another server with "*Re-allocate UIDs and GID" *set as Yes the whole 
>>things working great expect the "SuexecUserGroup" in apache virtualhost
>>which is not change to the new UID and GID which assigned by the new 
>>server. I think this is a bug and should fix in the next release.
>>    
>>
>
>Are you using Virtualmin 2.609 there? This problem was reported to me a while
>back, but I am pretty sure I fixed it in the latest release already ..
>
> - Jamie
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
>for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
>searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
>-
>Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
>To remove yourself from this list, go to
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>
>  
>

-- 
Regards
    =================================================================
   /  Seyyed Hamid Reza    /        WINDOWS FOR NOW  !!            /
  /  Hashemi Golpayegani  /  Linux for future , FreeBSD for ever  /
 /    Morva System Co.   / ------------------------------------- /
/  Network Administrator/ ha...@mo...   ,   ICQ# : 42209876 /
================================================================ 

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Backup and Restore Problem

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

On 18/Dec/2005 11:55 Hamid Hashemi wrote ..
> Hi ,
> 
> In the virtualmin when I try to backup a host and then restore it on 
> another server with "*Re-allocate UIDs and GID" *set as Yes the whole 
> things working great expect the "SuexecUserGroup" in apache virtualhost
> which is not change to the new UID and GID which assigned by the new 
> server. I think this is a bug and should fix in the next release.

Are you using Virtualmin 2.609 there? This problem was reported to me a while
back, but I am pretty sure I fixed it in the latest release already ..

 - Jamie

Re: [webmin-l] SPF bind appears wrong and doesn't update slave

[John H. <web...@ew...>]

Unknown Questions wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hinton" <web...@ew...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [webmin-l] SPF bind appears wrong and doesn't update slave
>
>
>> Unknown Questions wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> i've come across a problem with the SPF records in Bind - not sure 
>>> when it happened, because it was OK before
>>>
>>> i've just upgraded from Webmin 1.230 to 1.250 but that hasn't solved 
>>> the problem
>>>
>>> basically i'm trying to stop AOL bouncing e-mails back because the 
>>> domain doesn't have an SFP record
>>
>>
>> A couple of things. First, AOL is not bouncing based on no spf 
>> record. The record you have is worse than no record at all and can 
>> land you on several blacklists. Basically you've told the world is 
>> that any spammer can use your domain name to send spam and that's 
>> alright with you and not only alright, but proper use of your domain. 
>> Therefore blacklisting.
>>
>
> thanks - at least that's 1 version of ~all Vs. ?all as explained by 
> John Hinton below :-)
>
>> AOL does bounce for several reasons, the biggest of which is no 
>> reverse dns. Blacklisting would be the second largest reason that I'm 
>> aware of.
>
>
> John you're correct - the AOL bounce was because of a potential 
> reverse DNS problem
> <<< 421-:  (DNS:NR)  http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/421dnsnr.html
>
> but this started me off looking at the SPF records i'd created the 
> last time i had an AOL "error"
>
> i've since sent the same e-mail to the same AOL account without the 
> bounce back occuring
>
>
>>
>> A better example of a record
>>
>> "v=spf1 a mx ptr mx:mail.ew3d.com ip4:209.145.89.235 
>> ip4:209.145.89.234 ip4:64.203.174.0/24 ?all"
>>
>> gives two allowed IP addresses and one class C. ?all vs ~all is sort 
>> of arguable at the moment, but I chose ?all because of so many 
>> malconfigured mailservers out there that are rejecting when they 
>> shouldn't be (admin just turning stuff on in a GUI instead of 
>> 'reading' about it). ? just gets 'some' more of them through.
>>
>
> the problem here is that my customers use their ISP's outgoing SMTP 
> record to cut down on my server's processing strain and bandwidth
> so -all is not a practicle option
>
> plus i've not found any sane / simple explaination of the ~all V.s 
> ?all pros & cons

? is basically, I'm trying, but don't really pay a lot of attention to 
me (which also could be translated to, I'm not sure you've got it right, 
and I don't trust your system well enough to put up a more hardline 
record). ~ is ok, I think I've got it right, but please still go pretty 
easy on me and be sure to send me a bounce message. - means this is 
written in stone and don't bug me with bounce messages because if it 
doesn't match up, it didn't come from me. There was actually a lot of 
agument during the building of the spec for spf about the ? and ~. Not a 
lot of difference between the two.

This is AOL's spf record

"v=spf1 ip4:152.163.225.0/24 ip4:205.188.139.0/24 ip4:205.188.144.0/24 
ip4:205.188.156.0/23 ip4:205.188.159.0/24 ip4:64.12.136.0/23 
ip4:64.12.138.0/24 ptr:mx.aol.com ?all"

Remember, what you do on your end isn't really what lands you in hot 
water. It's what the other end does with the record and many admins 
aren't getting it right on their end. Really, to me, it's too early to 
do any mail filtering based on SPF. I like to let the big boys make use 
of RFCs, such as rev dns.

I had a - in place for a while. Heck I was positive! So what happens? My 
mail gets rejected by some dumb admin who has all email received by an 
email provider then forwarded to his local server. Then he enables SPF 
checking on his local server. So, my record says it has to come from my 
IP... which was delivered to his mail service, which forwarded it to 
him... to which his box said this didn't come from that IP but instead 
came from 'mail service' IP which does not match so fail this email. 
BLAHHHHH!!!!

Yes, the most troublesome issue with SPF is exactly your situation... 
which is the same as mine. Many of our clients use their ISP for 
outgoing email. This means 'someone' would have to keep up with IP 
addresses and/or SPF records. There is a nifty tool however which can be 
used right inside the SPF txt record, which basically says to import 
that ISP's SPF record for this domain. I don't right off know what the 
format is, but I think it's too early to use these as well. If the 
client is a AOL customer, or one of the other large providers who are 
embracing SPF, it 'might' be safe to do the inclusion.

What I have decided to do at the moment, is to wait for the rest of the 
world to catch up a bit more and in the meantime only add SPF records 
for those clients that I 'KNOW' are using our mail services exclusively. 
The mix is just a little too new for me to trust someISP's SPF record 
for mail delivery on a domain that they likely don't even know exists. 
There's going to have to be some real togetherness on this.

The upside? Blacklisting will be reliable. Zombie spammers will no 
longer be successful. Spam will be dealt the biggest hurdle since the 
first anti-spam software. I would much rather do a SPF check on the way 
in, just like I do a DNS check and immediately handle that mail before 
it runs through clamAV, SA, sometimes hitting the backup mailserver... 
just using up horsepower. I noticed one of my boxes bounced 125,000 
messages yesterday and I have pretty open policies for receiving! The 
same box had 100s of virus delivery attempts.. likely 100% of which 
would never had made it thru to clamAV if SPF was fully enacted world 
wide. It seems each year we need a lot more horsepower to deal with the 
spam loads.. we need something simple like SPF.

But, go slow and be VERY sure in this world, yet try to do what you can, 
as the more domains which have SPF grows, the more it will be put to 
use, until a time when you'll have to have a SPF record in order to send 
mail.. again.. just like rev dns. At that point, it'll be clear to 
everyone that SPF needs to be dealt with.

Best,
John Hinton

[webmin-l] Virtualmin Backup and Restore Problem

[Hamid H. <ha...@mo...>]

Hi ,

In the virtualmin when I try to backup a host and then restore it on 
another server with "*Re-allocate UIDs and GID" *set as Yes the whole 
things working great expect the "SuexecUserGroup" in apache virtualhost 
which is not change to the new UID and GID which assigned by the new 
server. I think this is a bug and should fix in the next release.

-- 
Regards
    =================================================================
   /  Seyyed Hamid Reza    /        WINDOWS FOR NOW  !!            /
  /  Hashemi Golpayegani  /  Linux for future , FreeBSD for ever  /
 /    Morva System Co.   / ------------------------------------- /
/  Network Administrator/ ha...@mo...   ,   ICQ# : 42209876 /
================================================================ 

Re: [webmin-l] user module

[boricua <bo...@de...>]

On Sunday 18 December 2005 04:59 am, Jamie Cameron wrote:
> There is a config option for this, but it is in the Read User Mail module.
> On the Module Config page there are settings to have the mail files for new
> users created automatically by Webmin..
>
>  - Jamie
>

cool
thanks

Re: [webmin-l] user module

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

There is a config option for this, but it is in the Read User Mail module. On the Module Config page there are settings to have the mail files for new users created automatically by Webmin..

 - Jamie

-----Original Message-----

From:  boricua <bo...@de...>
Subj:  [webmin-l] user module
Date:  Sun 18 Dec 2005 12:49 am
Size:  670 bytes
To:  web...@li...

when i create i user via webmin/user mdoule it is not createting the file 
in /var/spool/mail/  for the user's mailbox.

any hints if there is a config option 



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] SPF bind appears wrong and doesn't update slave

[Unknown Q. <web...@un...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Hinton" <web...@ew...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [webmin-l] SPF bind appears wrong and doesn't update slave


> Unknown Questions wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> i've come across a problem with the SPF records in Bind - not sure when 
>> it happened, because it was OK before
>>
>> i've just upgraded from Webmin 1.230 to 1.250 but that hasn't solved the 
>> problem
>>
>> basically i'm trying to stop AOL bouncing e-mails back because the domain 
>> doesn't have an SFP record
>
> A couple of things. First, AOL is not bouncing based on no spf record. The 
> record you have is worse than no record at all and can land you on several 
> blacklists. Basically you've told the world is that any spammer can use 
> your domain name to send spam and that's alright with you and not only 
> alright, but proper use of your domain. Therefore blacklisting.
>

thanks - at least that's 1 version of ~all Vs. ?all as explained by John 
Hinton below :-)

> AOL does bounce for several reasons, the biggest of which is no reverse 
> dns. Blacklisting would be the second largest reason that I'm aware of.

John you're correct - the AOL bounce was because of a potential reverse DNS 
problem
<<< 421-:  (DNS:NR)  http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/421dnsnr.html

but this started me off looking at the SPF records i'd created the last time 
i had an AOL "error"

i've since sent the same e-mail to the same AOL account without the bounce 
back occuring


>
> A better example of a record
>
> "v=spf1 a mx ptr mx:mail.ew3d.com ip4:209.145.89.235 ip4:209.145.89.234 
> ip4:64.203.174.0/24 ?all"
>
> gives two allowed IP addresses and one class C. ?all vs ~all is sort of 
> arguable at the moment, but I chose ?all because of so many malconfigured 
> mailservers out there that are rejecting when they shouldn't be (admin 
> just turning stuff on in a GUI instead of 'reading' about it). ? just gets 
> 'some' more of them through.
>

the problem here is that my customers use their ISP's outgoing SMTP record 
to cut down on my server's processing strain and bandwidth
so -all is not a practicle option

plus i've not found any sane / simple explaination of the ~all V.s ?all pros 
& cons

>>
>> the domains i'm using all have SPF records on the Master server's Bind 
>> set to
>> domain.tld. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
>>
>> and these used to get pushed across to the Slave Bind on the 2nd server
>>
>> however, none of the domain's slave bind records now show the SFP / TXT 
>> field - it's just blank
>>
> This is however something that needs to be looked into as it should work 
> for your entry as well as any other entry with what would be considered a 
> better spf txt record.
>

Yes - i think i've spotted an error in the way the SLAVE record is displayed 
/ implemented by Webmin's Bind module

>> i've tried to force updates etc but nothing will push the record from the 
>> master to the slave
>> (i've created extra A & MX records to test that other fields get pushed 
>> across OK and they work OK)
>>
>> STOP PRESS
>> looking at the slave bind record via
>> https://slave IP:10000/bind8/edit_slave.cgi?index=NNN
>> it only shows the TXT record field as being empty
>>
>> but looking at the slave bind record via
>> https://slave IP:10000/bind8/view_text.cgi?index=NNN&view=
>> does show the line
>> TXT    "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
>>
>> so now i'm really confused as to what is the correct live data being 
>> output to the world
>>
>> normally i manually create the bind record on the master server and 
>> include the line
>> domain.tld. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
>> but i see now that you've got the editable fields for the SPF records
>> but i think you've also got one of the field options WRONG
>>
>> looking at https://master 
>> IP:10000/bind8/edit_recs.cgi?index=24&view=&type=SPF
>>
>> you've got a drop-down box for the Action for other senders
>> it gives these options
>> Disallow (-all)
>> Disallow (~all) i think this should say DISCOURAGE

Jamie i still think this IS a wrong description of the option

>> Neutral (?all)
>> Allow (+all)
>> Default
>>
>> looking at http://www.openspf.org/mechanisms.html
>> it appears that the settigns should =
>> - fail
>> ~ softfail
>> + pass
>> ? neutral
>>
>> but 
>> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/ 
>> explains it as
>>
>> +all = Yes; mail may legitimately originate
>> from IP addresses not identified above.
>>
>> -all = No; this domain sends mail only from the
>> IP addresses identified above.
>>
>> ?all = Neutral; this domain makes no statement
>> about whether mail may legitimately originate from IP addresses
>> not identified above.
>>
>> ~all = Discouraged; mail may legitimately originate
>> from IP addresses not identified above, however,
>> use of such IP addresses is discouraged and may
>> not be permitted in the future.
>>
>>
>> there also appears to be a potential problem on the horizon with the 2 
>> versions of SPF
>> spf1 & spf2
>> should Webmin's bind be able to produce records for both types of SPF 
>> record?
>>
>> whilst i'm looking at this i've also come across another minefield
>> http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>> Jamie - do you have any plans to implement tools for this into Webmin / 
>> Virtulamin
>>
>> sorry to have rambled on so much
>
> Also of note, the IETF or ISEG or whoever it is, has recently announced 
> that SID is in direct conflict with other RFCs, so it looks as though 
> Microsoft is going to have to make some big changes to SID or else, as 
> they do so often, just force non-standards upon the world. RFCs however 
> are apparently never retracted but only built upon... this is an 
> interesting spot for MS. So, be careful about what you read on 
> microsoft.com. You may get bad information based on a bad RFC submission.
>
> http://www.openspf.org/
>
> still contains the best spf wizard, although it has many shortcomings as 
> well.
>

thanks John. i'm even more confused about what to do
perhaps we can encourage AOL & Micro$oft & YouHoo to stop messing us 
around - fat chance :-)

> Best,
> John Hinton
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log 
> files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at 
> web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> 

Re: [webmin-l] SPF bind appears wrong and doesn't update slave

[John H. <web...@ew...>]

Unknown Questions wrote:

> Hi
>
> i've come across a problem with the SPF records in Bind - not sure 
> when it happened, because it was OK before
>
> i've just upgraded from Webmin 1.230 to 1.250 but that hasn't solved 
> the problem
>
> basically i'm trying to stop AOL bouncing e-mails back because the 
> domain doesn't have an SFP record

A couple of things. First, AOL is not bouncing based on no spf record. 
The record you have is worse than no record at all and can land you on 
several blacklists. Basically you've told the world is that any spammer 
can use your domain name to send spam and that's alright with you and 
not only alright, but proper use of your domain. Therefore blacklisting.

AOL does bounce for several reasons, the biggest of which is no reverse 
dns. Blacklisting would be the second largest reason that I'm aware of.

A better example of a record

"v=spf1 a mx ptr mx:mail.ew3d.com ip4:209.145.89.235 ip4:209.145.89.234 
ip4:64.203.174.0/24 ?all"

gives two allowed IP addresses and one class C. ?all vs ~all is sort of 
arguable at the moment, but I chose ?all because of so many 
malconfigured mailservers out there that are rejecting when they 
shouldn't be (admin just turning stuff on in a GUI instead of 'reading' 
about it). ? just gets 'some' more of them through.

>
> the domains i'm using all have SPF records on the Master server's Bind 
> set to
> domain.tld. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
>
> and these used to get pushed across to the Slave Bind on the 2nd server
>
> however, none of the domain's slave bind records now show the SFP / 
> TXT field - it's just blank
>
This is however something that needs to be looked into as it should work 
for your entry as well as any other entry with what would be considered 
a better spf txt record.

> i've tried to force updates etc but nothing will push the record from 
> the master to the slave
> (i've created extra A & MX records to test that other fields get 
> pushed across OK and they work OK)
>
> STOP PRESS
> looking at the slave bind record via
> https://slave IP:10000/bind8/edit_slave.cgi?index=NNN
> it only shows the TXT record field as being empty
>
> but looking at the slave bind record via
> https://slave IP:10000/bind8/view_text.cgi?index=NNN&view=
> does show the line
> TXT    "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
>
> so now i'm really confused as to what is the correct live data being 
> output to the world
>
> normally i manually create the bind record on the master server and 
> include the line
> domain.tld. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ~all"
> but i see now that you've got the editable fields for the SPF records
> but i think you've also got one of the field options WRONG
>
> looking at https://master 
> IP:10000/bind8/edit_recs.cgi?index=24&view=&type=SPF
>
> you've got a drop-down box for the Action for other senders
> it gives these options
> Disallow (-all)
> Disallow (~all) i think this should say DISCOURAGE
> Neutral (?all)
> Allow (+all)
> Default
>
> looking at http://www.openspf.org/mechanisms.html
> it appears that the settigns should =
> - fail
> ~ softfail
> + pass
> ? neutral
>
> but 
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/ 
> explains it as
>
> +all = Yes; mail may legitimately originate
> from IP addresses not identified above.
>
> -all = No; this domain sends mail only from the
> IP addresses identified above.
>
> ?all = Neutral; this domain makes no statement
> about whether mail may legitimately originate from IP addresses
> not identified above.
>
> ~all = Discouraged; mail may legitimately originate
> from IP addresses not identified above, however,
> use of such IP addresses is discouraged and may
> not be permitted in the future.
>
>
> there also appears to be a potential problem on the horizon with the 2 
> versions of SPF
> spf1 & spf2
> should Webmin's bind be able to produce records for both types of SPF 
> record?
>
> whilst i'm looking at this i've also come across another minefield
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
> Jamie - do you have any plans to implement tools for this into Webmin 
> / Virtulamin
>
> sorry to have rambled on so much

Also of note, the IETF or ISEG or whoever it is, has recently announced 
that SID is in direct conflict with other RFCs, so it looks as though 
Microsoft is going to have to make some big changes to SID or else, as 
they do so often, just force non-standards upon the world. RFCs however 
are apparently never retracted but only built upon... this is an 
interesting spot for MS. So, be careful about what you read on 
microsoft.com. You may get bad information based on a bad RFC submission.

http://www.openspf.org/

still contains the best spf wizard, although it has many shortcomings as 
well.

Best,
John Hinton

Re: [webmin-l] user module

[Marcos R. <we...@al...>]

acutally... at least with sendmail as MTA, procmail as the LDA and Qpopper
as the POP3 client... the /var/spool/mail/account-name file is created by
the system when account-name receives the first piece of mail.

in other words... after creating a user with the webmin/user module, and
then be sure that us...@yo... can receive mail for account-name
try to send an email to us...@yo... and see what happens!

Cheers!

felices fiestas
Marcos


On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, boricua wrote:

> when i create i user via webmin/user mdoule it is not createting the file
> in /var/spool/mail/  for the user's mailbox.
>
> any hints if there is a config option
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>

Re: [webmin-l] user module

[Obantec S. <su...@ob...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "boricua" <bo...@de...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [webmin-l] user module


> On Saturday 17 December 2005 09:15 am, Obantec Support wrote:
> > i use below (all on 1 line)
<snip>


A screen shot will not help as the command line only shows the first bit.
goto the User and Group (in system) where you add users etc. Select the
Module Config at the top and add the line to second box down "Before and
after commands"
"Command to run after making changes" and add the line of text i sent you.

and save.

This then runs when you add a new user.

Mark

Re: [webmin-l] user module

[boricua <bo...@de...>]

On Saturday 17 December 2005 09:15 am, Obantec Support wrote:
> i use below (all on 1 line)
>
> [ $USERADMIN_ACTION = "CREATE_USER" ] && (touch
> /var/spool/mail/$USERADMIN_USER ; chown $USERADMIN_UID:mail
> /var/spool/mail/$USERADMIN_USER ; chmod 0600
> /var/spool/mail/$USERADMIN_USER )
>
> in the Module Config (command to run after making changes.

don't understand exactly what you mean.
is this a script you run? from the user module , if so do you have a screen 
shot

Re: [webmin-l] user module

[Obantec S. <su...@ob...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "boricua" <bo...@de...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:44 PM
Subject: [webmin-l] user module


> when i create i user via webmin/user mdoule it is not createting the file
> in /var/spool/mail/  for the user's mailbox.
>
> any hints if there is a config option
>
<snip>

i use below (all on 1 line)

[ $USERADMIN_ACTION = "CREATE_USER" ] && (touch
/var/spool/mail/$USERADMIN_USER ; chown $USERADMIN_UID:mail
/var/spool/mail/$USERADMIN_USER ; chmod 0600
/var/spool/mail/$USERADMIN_USER )

in the Module Config (command to run after making changes.

HTH

Mark

[webmin-l] user module

[boricua <bo...@de...>]

when i create i user via webmin/user mdoule it is not createting the file 
in /var/spool/mail/  for the user's mailbox.

any hints if there is a config option