Surgemail won't start

Surgemail 38k4 Linux (Fedora 6)


I get the following error:

Starting SurgeMAIL server:
stat failed
: No such file or directory
Couldn't get stat info on (), does it exist

This happened immediately after doing a 'yum update'.
Reverting to  
the previous kernel doesn't help.

Any ideas anyone? I'm stumped. All other services on the
machine  
appear to be running fine.

Thanks,
John Greatwood

Not to worry, I sorted it.

A couple of days ago the web admin threw a wobbly when all
the fields  
in the interface came up empty and wiped out huge chunks of
my  
surgemail.ini.  I restored it from a backup.

However, this time the following were missing:
         g_home "/usr/local/surgemail"
         g_webmail_workarea
"/usr/local/surgemail/web_work"
         g_work "/usr/local/surgemail/work"
so I added them in by hand and all is well.

Still, makes me wonder if there is some bug in the web
admin?

John



On 12 Oct 2007, at 22:39, John Greatwood wrote:

> Surgemail 38k4 Linux (Fedora 6)
>
>
> I get the following error:
>
> Starting SurgeMAIL server:
> stat failed
> : No such file or directory
> Couldn't get stat info on (), does it exist
>
> This happened immediately after doing a 'yum update'.
Reverting to  
> the previous kernel doesn't help.
>
> Any ideas anyone? I'm stumped. All other services on
the machine  
> appear to be running fine.
>
> Thanks,
> John Greatwood
>

John Greatwood wrote:
> Surgemail 38k4 Linux (Fedora 6)
> 
> 
> I get the following error:
> 
> Starting SurgeMAIL server:
> stat failed
> : No such file or directory
> Couldn't get stat info on (), does it exist
> 
> This happened immediately after doing a 'yum update'.
Reverting to the 
> previous kernel doesn't help.
> 
> Any ideas anyone? I'm stumped. All other services on
the machine appear 
> to be running fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> John Greatwood
> 

I think you've lost /etc/surgemail.ini during your upgrade,
copy it from 
the latest file:  /usr/local/surgemail/ini*.rec


-- 
When replying please quote original message to save time and
always let
us know what OS and version of SurgeMail you are using.

************************************************************
****************
If you wish to communicate with other users and talk about
SurgeMail and
also get news about updates etc then join the SurgeMail
List.
Send an email to surgemail-list-requestnetwinsite.com with only 
"subscribe" in the message body

FAQ - http
://www.netwinsite.com/surgemail/help/faq.htm
************************************************************
**************** 

Tonight someone posted a message to one of our lists.  She
was 
authorized as a "poster" but I had entered her
email address incorrectly.

What I got was a message with the subject line:

"Post requiring approval"

The text in the top of the message said this:

"The attached message was sent to this moderated
mailing list
to post the message forward it to homeownerswhitehorsecrossing.org

You may need to add this line to the top of the forwarded
message

This will only be needed if your emailer strips the special
header and
your reply address doesn't match the moderator address
stored in the list
   approved thehorse"

I am not too keen on seeing the password included in this
message.

I followed the instructions and "forwarded" the
message 
intact.  Well, of course, that is probably not what the
writer of the 
above text had in mind.  It ended up posting everything from
the 
approval required version as coming from me with the subject
"[White 
Horse Crossing] Fwd: Post requiring approval".  In all
pretty ugly.

Was I supposed to simply reply to the message and ONLY
include 
"approved thehorse".  If so, how in the world
would the DLIST 
software be able to sort out two or more such messages
received in short order?

What should have happened, I believe, is if this worked as
one would 
have expected, the approval process would have released the
original 
message including subject and sender to the list.  Didn't
even come close.

Am I missing something?

One thing is probably I did not check "Moderate by
Web" which would 
have included a relevant link and allowed me to use the
Internet to 
approve the message or go through the administrator login
and it 
would have posted.  I have since changed this.

Once I added the individual to the list of Posters
(posters.tpl) she 
sent the message again to try to get a clean post.  No such
luck.  It 
still came through to be approved again.  I had assumed that
anyone 
in the Posters list would be able to post without 
moderation.  Apparently under some circumstances this is not
the 
case.  I tested this with a list and with one poster it
worked 
fine.  When I added a second poster it no longer worked
(required 
approval again) Do I need to place every email address
authorized to 
post without moderation in the Moderator field?  That is
broken too 
(or has an undocumented feature) because it causes an error
message 
to be generated when the periodic DLIST message is sent AND
that is 
likely going to be sent to EVERYONE in the moderator list.

May I request an enhancement here?  1) either do not require
multiple 
addresses listed as posters to be moderated even if the list
is 
moderated.  OR, 2 ) allow for an option "Don't require
approval of 
authorized posters" - I think the intent was to allow
posts without 
moderation but it might be broken for two or more posters OR
3) allow 
for multiple moderators BUT have a level 1 moderator to whom
the 
DLIST messages are sent, but not to the others.  Maybe a
field for 
the additional moderators "Secondary moderators".

What we have is a homeowners association.  We have a list
for posting 
messages to the homeowners.  The homeowners themselves can
not post 
to this list (thus set to moderated).  They have another
list they 
can send messages to the board of directors through.  The
board of 
directors are the ones who are included in the list of
"Posters" for 
the homeowners list.  I wanted all of them to be able to
post to the 
list without requiring approval but I didn't want them
having to deal 
with list management.

What have I done wrong?

Orin Wells wrote:
> Tonight someone posted a message to one of our lists. 
She was 
> authorized as a "poster" but I had entered
her email address incorrectly.
> 
> What I got was a message with the subject line:
> 
> "Post requiring approval"

...snip...

> Once I added the individual to the list of Posters
(posters.tpl) she 
> sent the message again to try to get a clean post.  No
such luck.  It 
> still came through to be approved again.  I had assumed
that anyone in 
> the Posters list would be able to post without
moderation.  Apparently 
> under some circumstances this is not the case.  I
tested this with a 
> list and with one poster it worked fine.  When I added
a second poster 
> it no longer worked (required approval again) Do I need
to place every 
> email address authorized to post without moderation in
the Moderator 
> field?  That is broken too (or has an undocumented
feature) because it 
> causes an error message to be generated when the
periodic DLIST message 
> is sent AND that is likely going to be sent to EVERYONE
in the moderator 
> list.

Orin

I experimented a bit with my test list and found that with 2
addresses 
in "posters.tpl" I could send from either one. If
I used an address not 
in "posters.tpl", I got a bounce to the sender -
because although I have 
said posting by moderator only, I have left the moderator
field empty.

I commonly use moderated-with-no-moderator to bounce
spammers.

Not sure why yours isn't working. Version? Mine is:
SurgeMail Version 3.8k4-4, Built Aug 29 2007 11:23:22,
Platform Windows

-- 
Neil Herber
Corporate info at http://www.eton.ca/

Orin Wells wrote:
> Tonight someone posted a message to one of our lists. 
She was 
> authorized as a "poster" but I had entered
her email address incorrectly.
> 
> What I got was a message with the subject line:
> 
> "Post requiring approval"
> 
> The text in the top of the message said this:
> 
> "The attached message was sent to this moderated
mailing list
> to post the message forward it to homeownerswhitehorsecrossing.org
> 
> You may need to add this line to the top of the
forwarded message
> 
> This will only be needed if your emailer strips the
special header and
> your reply address doesn't match the moderator address
stored in the list
>   approved thehorse"
> 
> I am not too keen on seeing the password included in
this message.
> 
> I followed the instructions and "forwarded"
the message intact.  Well, 
> of course, that is probably not what the writer of the
above text had in 
> mind.  It ended up posting everything from the approval
required version 
> as coming from me with the subject "[White Horse
Crossing] Fwd: Post 
> requiring approval".  In all pretty ugly.
> 
> Was I supposed to simply reply to the message and ONLY
include "approved 
> thehorse".  If so, how in the world would the
DLIST software be able to 
> sort out two or more such messages received in short
order?
> 
> What should have happened, I believe, is if this worked
as one would 
> have expected, the approval process would have released
the original 
> message including subject and sender to the list. 
Didn't even come close.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> One thing is probably I did not check "Moderate by
Web" which would have 
> included a relevant link and allowed me to use the
Internet to approve 
> the message or go through the administrator login and
it would have 
> posted.  I have since changed this.

Yes, to make it work the way you expected you need the
moderate by web 
option, otherwise it's using the old fashioned mechanism
which is ugly.

> 
> Once I added the individual to the list of Posters
(posters.tpl) she 
> sent the message again to try to get a clean post.  No
such luck.  It 
> still came through to be approved again.  



> field?  That is broken too (or has an undocumented
feature) because it 
> causes an error message to be generated when the
periodic DLIST message 

New builds will have this issue fixed.

> authorized posters" - I think the intent was to
allow posts without 
> moderation but it might be broken for two or more
posters OR 3) allow 
> for multiple moderators BUT have a level 1 moderator to
whom the DLIST 
> messages are sent, but not to the others.  Maybe a
field for the 
> additional moderators "Secondary
moderators".

I think this issue is fixed now, what platform are you on
I'd better get 
you a new dlist binary to try.


	ChrisP.