Re: [cobalt-users] (no subject)

["Jeff Lasman" <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Annette Sharp, NetSharp" wrote:

> I know what you're saying Jeff and agree that my approach doesn't make
> sense.

And I understand why you're saying what you're saying, as well... but
the problem is that you don't (at least from your writing, it appears
that you don't) understand the underlying sendmail program, and how it
works.  Have you ever read and traced email through sendmail code?  No? 
I didn't think so <smile>.

> I'd been trying to resolve the issue for 5 days
> and had my colo provider working on the issue for 3 of those, and they had
> also involved Cobalt on my behalf - with zero result. They just could not
> explain why the catchall was catching everything and not just the leftovers
> (as it were).

Of course it's possible that no one at Cobalt does, either, or that they
just didn't direct your problem to the right person (Cobalters, please
feel free to jump in here <smile>).

> I don't understand why it got rid of my problem and why the problem
> arose in the first place....

There could be a problem in how the RaQ "sauce" writes to the
/etc/virtusertable file.

There was such a problem on the RaQ3 when it first came out; I remember
I couldn't use it for email for a while until it was fixed.  I'd think
Cobalt has learned from their mistakes, though.

In order to trace that I'd have to have a RaQ4.  Since I don't own my
own RaQ4, I could only look into someone else's.  And because of
security, liability and insurance issues, I can only do that for
clients.

Is anyone else reporting this issue with the RaQ4?  

> My approach was in desperation! I think that the point I am trying to make
> is that there seems (on a RAQ4) to be a certain order in which things have
> to be done, and if that order isn't followed, then the underlying files get
> out of kilter.

So are you saying that every time you want to add a user you must delete
the site?  That makes the RaQ4 quite unusable if it's true; I think we'd
have heard from others if it were indeed the case.  Anyone????

> Therefore, it is not possible to run a RAQ4 from the browser interface
> without getting underneath - which is fair enough for anyone happy to learn
> what's underneath, but pretty bad form from Cobalt and their partners who
> sell these machines as being suitable for people with no Linux/Unix
> skills....

If what you're writing was true, then the RaQ4 would NOT be a viable
product.  Did you ask your colo-provider's tech support team if others
had the same problem?  (Actually, I don't see how a colo-house support
team would be responsible for your RaQ, unless they're renting it to you
or also sold it to you.)

Had you done anything inside your RaQ (underneath, as you put it) prior
to this problem coming up?

We're good at tracing this sort of problem, which shouln't be happening
in a properly configured system, but our services aren't covered by
Cobalt's Warranty; for that you have to fight it out through them.

I really don't think this is an issue with all RaQ4s, though.  If it
were, I think someone else would have answered by now.

Anyone else care to comment?

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672
Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 787-8589  *  fax: (909) 782-0205

_______________________________________________
cobalt-users mailing list
cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users