InterWorx-CP 3.0-RC4 Available - Last RC before offical release!

[b]Information about the RC3, RC2 and RC1 releases can be found here:
RC3: http://interworx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2021
RC2: http://interworx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1999
RC1: http://interworx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1990

If you haven’t read those threads, you may want to. A number of questions are answered there.
[/b]

The RC3, RC2 and RC1 threads are now locked, post questions to this thread instead.

We recommend everyone that has installed RC1, RC2 and/or RC3, and anyone that hasn’t upgraded yet but would like to help test, update their servers with the following command:

rpm -Uvh http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm \
http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm \
http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm

A limited demo is available here
https://demo-iworx3.interworx.com:2443/nodeworx/

NodeWorx login:
username: demo-iworx3@interworx.com
password: demo

SiteWorx login:
username: demo-iworx3@interworx.com
password: demo
domain: demo-iworx3.interworx.com

RC4 includes the following changes/fixes:

  • A handful of fixes to the backup/restore/import system
  • Fixes to the SPF and SRV record types - that is, when adding them, they work now. SPF record format is the same as the TXT type, you can use either for SPF records.
  • Fixes to the cluster-node-add process, for accounts with SSL set up and accounts with dedicated IPs
  • Fix how the secondary domain’s NS records get added (based on the parent domain now)
  • Some folks that upgraded to previous RC’s hit a bug where the SiteWorx user’s theme was not set during upgrade, which lead to a few different problems. This update fixes that for those users.
  • Fix incorrect display of backup file storage usage in NodeWorx
  • Bayes training folders system improved (faster)
  • Fix a few problems with deleting MySQL databases, and MySQL user permissions in SiteWorx.

NOTE: This is the last Release Candidate (RC) before the offical version 3.0 release that will auto-update for servers with auto-updating enabled (the default). Any problems found in RC4 will be fixed in the offical release. We don’t expect the offical release to be more than a week away from now. If you haven’t updated to any of the release candidates yet and to see what to expect when 3.0 is released, now is the time!

Thanks again to everyone that has helped test so far! One more push and we’ll have this release complete.

Paul

Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:interworx              ########################################### [ 33%]
   2:interworx-siteworx     ########################################### [ 67%]
   3:interworx-nodeworx     ########################################### [100%]

Successful install this time around.

Thanks Paul

[QUOTE=pascal;12680]Hi,

With the V3.0 release it is now possible to :

  • Create a DNS template and so use a SPF template
  • Use a record type named SPF (rather than TXT)

Ok I’ll give you an example and ask you how this example could be set in V3.0

Say we have a domain name called domain.com .

  • this domain has a A dns record.
  • The mx for this domain is so mail.domain.com
  • And finally the mail server on the box which host this domain is called clust01.domain.com

So we should create a SPF record like this one

v=spf1 a mx ~all

Which means that for this domain, the A and MX record can send email and all others should normally not !

ps: v=spf1 means that it is a TXT record and not a SPF one, right, so for a SPF record type what is the syntax ?
[/quote]

The syntax is the same as with the TXT record. You can use TXT records or SPF record type in the DNS interface, and the format is the same. From the user perspective, there really isn’t any difference, and it’s only slightly different in how the backend exports the records, but you don’t need to worry about that :).

The SPF wizard also talk about the HELO domain used by the mail server :

If you run BIND
Paste this into your zone file:

carat-hosting.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx ~all"

When a mail server sends a bounce message, it uses a null MAIL FROM: <>, and a HELO address that's supposed to be its own name. SPF will still operate, but in "degraded mode" by using the HELO domain name instead. Because this wizard can't tell which name your mail server uses in its HELO command, it lists all possible names, so there may be multiple lines shown below. If you know which hostname your mail server uses in its HELO command, you should pick out the appropriate entries and ignore the rest.

So this should also appear in DNS. You may or may not be in charge of the DNS for these entries; if you are, add them.

clust01.domain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
mail.domain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"

If you run tinydns (djbdns)

'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600
'clust01.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600
'mail.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 

So it explains that we also have to add the name the mail server use and we have to add a SPF records in the DNS for this name.

It looks like that for TinyDns we have to add a SPF record for the MX server, for the A record and also for the mail server name !

'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600
'clust01.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600
'mail.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600  

[B]How this could be created with :

  • The dns template
  • directly for a domain
    [/B]

For the “domain.com” dns zone, you only need the first line - the

'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600

Via the NodeWorx interface, that just translates as a SPF record with
Host: domain.com Target: v=spf1 a mx ~all

That is only correct if the IP address you get when pinging domain.com is the same as the main IP of the server - which is the IP the mail will be sent from. If that’s not the case, you need to make sure that IP address is “valid” in your SPF record. So a SPF record with
Target: v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.domain.com ~all
might be more correct.

The other two are for bounce messages - when the “From” header isn’t applicable - so it uses the “HELO” host to do a check. In your case, the HELO host is the “Mail Server Hostname (FQDN)” in NodeWorx->System Servers->Mail Server->MTA. It may be “clust01.domain.com” in your case.
In that case, you should indeed add another SPF record to the domain.com zone. Host: clust01.domain.com Target: v=spf1 a -all
This tells the receiving mail system that bounce messages from whatever IP address clust01.domain.com resolves to is “valid mail”. You need an “A” record set up for clus01.domain.com in that case, if it isn’t already.

The above example is a bit more complex than the normal scenario. Normally, the main SPF record for normal mail (not bounce messages) will not be under the same zone as the bounce message spf records.

The “bounce message” spf records normally go under a different DNS zone - usually that of your host, “yourisp.com” for example.

So then the “bounce message” spf records would go under the yourisp.com zone, and there would be one for clust01.yourisp.com. There is probably a short cut method to use to specify multiple servers, for *.yourisp.com, but check the SPF documentation.

So - using the DNS template system on the server clust01.yourisp.com, you’d add a record to the DNS template Zone, that looks like

dns-template.com SPF v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.yourisp.com ~all

Finally, I have a special case which is cluster.

We do a load-balncing for smtp/pop3/imap connexion, in fact all mails are sent not from the cluster manager it self (clust01.domain.com) but from a node called clust02.domain.com (but with the IP of the MX/A record for this domain)

So we’d also add the name of the mail server of the nodes that could send emails !?
is it correct ?

So to conclude we should have, for one domaine, few SPF records :

'domain.com:v=spf1 a mx ~all:3600 ---> the A record
'mail.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the MX record
'clust01.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the name of the mail server on the CM
'clust02.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the name of the mail server on the node

and in fact
'clustXX.domain.com:v=spf1 a -all:3600 ---> the name of the mail server on every nodes that could sent an email (and a bounce message) 

Is it correct ?

If yes how could we set up this in interworx v3.0 using the DNS template for new domains and using the dns editor for existing domains ?

Thanks a ton

Pascal

As described above, you don’t need all those SPF records for each domain. You need one SPF record that allows all the nodes in the cluster to be “valid” senders. So one SPF record that looks like

dns-template.com SPF v=spf1 a mx a:clust01.yourisp.com a:clust02.yourisp.com ~all

Then, in your zone for “yourisp.com” you create an SPF records like
clust01.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all
clust02.yourisp.com SPF v=spf1 a -all

This handles the “bounce message” scenario - which is arguably less important than the “main” domain SPF record.

This SPF stuff can get complicated huh :slight_smile:

Paul

install went well :smiley:

Not sure if i have missed this, so apologies if the option is already available.

Just something i find useful on another hosting panel i use and wondered if it could be added to interworx.

When i changing an option on an existing sitworx/nodeworx package in package management.
Would it be possible to have a synchronise option so that all siteworx account users using that package have they account updated with the new option i have just changed.

If you have many accounts and you change an option on a package it would save
editing them one by one.

Thank you

[QUOTE=bear;12765]When i changing an option on an existing sitworx/nodeworx package in package management.
Would it be possible to have a synchronise option so that all siteworx account users using that package have they account updated with the new option i have just changed.

If you have many accounts and you change an option on a package it would save
editing them one by one.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, this isn’t possible in InterWorx. As it stands, there is no “link” between an account and packages after the account is created. Once the account is created, we don’t store anywhere that “account A” is mapped to “package B”, which is what would be needed to do what you propose. We may consider it for a future version, but no promises. :slight_smile:

ok no problem but thought i would ask.
thanks for your reply

About backup

I just upgraded successfuly to the new rc 4.

My question is that can add an option in backup , to backup only mysql ?
I know that you can do it through phpmyadmin , but i have many customers that have updates only in mysql and i like the idea to automatically backup only the mysql.

Installation went perfectly. Thanks again for all the hard work guys!

I’m getting the following error while installing this RC on a server:


[root@iworx2 etc]# rpm -Uvh http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://updates.interworx.com/iworx/RPMS/noarch/v3/RC4/interworx-siteworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch.rpm
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:interworx              ########################################### [ 33%]
   2:interworx-siteworx     ########################################### [ 67%]
   3:interworx-nodeworx     ########################################### [100%]
PHP Fatal error:  Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 12 bytes) in /usr/local/interworx/include/siteworx/Option.php on line 136
Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 0 bytes)
error: %post(interworx-nodeworx-3.0.1-32.RC4.iworx.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1

Where can I change the memory limit?

EDIT: Found the solution.

Edit /home/interworx/etc/php.ini

Socheat meant to say

Edit: ~iworx/etc/php-cgi.ini

:slight_smile:

And I meant to fix that stupid bug in this release :mad: sorry about that.

[quote=ugh82;12776]I just upgraded successfuly to the new rc 4.

My question is that can add an option in backup , to backup only mysql ?
I know that you can do it through phpmyadmin , but i have many customers that have updates only in mysql and i like the idea to automatically backup only the mysql.[/quote]

SiteWorx already has this fature. :slight_smile:

Ooops

I only check out through the nodeworx!
You rocks! I’m lamer!:slight_smile:

I’m Waiting for the final release:)

Seems that this RC is good to go! Running it on 2 production servers w/o problems!

Runs also great in a Xen DomU and OpenVZ VPS!

But… I’m still waiting for the DNS editing feature for siteworx accounts :wink:

Will the DNS-edit function be included at all?

I probabbly found a bug:

Some scripts in scriptworx are 0.0 Mbyte in size, when I try to install them I get this error:
? There was a problem untarring the files to the installation directory

These scripts are 0 in size:
phpMyFaq
Photo Galleries
Coppermine
ZenCart
OpenAds
phpNuke
Nucleus

What do you mean by “DNS-edit function”?

[QUOTE=WebXtrA;12869]Some scripts in scriptworx are 0.0 Mbyte in size, when I try to install them I get this error:
? There was a problem untarring the files to the installation directory
[/QUOTE]

Open a ticket and we’ll check it out.

Looks great so far. The installation was successful.

One thing though. The Spam and Ham training folders do not seem to “train” from every email.

The scriptworx users will be able to edit their own DNS-settings for all domains allocated underneath their scriptworx account.