If we know that qmail doesn't change the input string:
- either sendmail does change it,
- or the Java applet sends different text to each MTA...
I don't know that sendmail is going to muck with the
contents of the email - we are talking data, not header
or address right?-)
But - as Paul Schinder mentioned - you will have to find
out what is being sent to know for sure.
With an 'intelligent' front end like JAVA, the JAVA
portion may be checking for the return codes of various
SMTP commands - perhaps it sends a sendmail-specific
command, and expects a sendmail-specific response...
When qmail doesn't respond in the same way, the JAVA
says it can't handle the £, and so doesn't send it...
I'll wave my hand at testing this - trace the connection
and see what traffic passes between each of the 2 and
compare...
If this is the case, you can either fix the JAVA, have
a whack at corrupting the qmail source, or find a P166 to
load Linux on and still use sendmail...
steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mwangu wrote:
>
> Steve, thank you for your reply:
>
> The accounting system's Java applet which communicates
> to both sendmail and qmail (depending on which address
> you send to) is the same and generates the account
> data from from a database. This data is then sent by
> e-mail using this applet client to talk to the mail
> server.
>
> My reference to sendming to qmail directly was that
> the test 1) was to e-mail address user@qmailhost,
> whereas in 2) it was to user@sendmailrelay,
> sendmailrelay would then pass this email on to
> user@qmailhost.
>
> As mentioned before, sendmail appears to handle the
> input from the mail client, but qmail does not.
>
> If anyone could give me some pointers as to what I
> should check in my qmail configuration, to eliminate
> qmail as a suspect, I would appreciate it.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --- Steve Tylock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don't know if it helps or not - I have the £
> > (Sterling sign) in the email that you sent, and
> > have 2 qmail relays in front of me.
> > [If the £ sign is not valid above, let me know - I
> > have a netscape client talking to a qmail server...]
> >
> > So - it seems to me that qmail is not corrupting the
> > sign as a transport.
> >
> > That would leave the initial dumping of the input
> > text into the message body as the corrupter.
> >
> > When you say "send the message directly to qmail"
> > what do you mean (as opposed to sending it to
> > sendmail)? I would hazard an educated guess that
> > the mechanism is different,
> > and the problem is introduced there.
> >
> > not a qmail expert, but I like to turn over rocks;-)
> > steve
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
