Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * Steve Talley [05/16/02 23:35:59 CEST] wrote: > Rocco Rutte wrote: > > Maybe I'm missing something, but in my case I saw quite a few > > problems if I don't redirect stderr to stdout. I always had to > > redraw the screen via ^L. > Do you have $wait_key set? Yes. The problem is pgpgpg which is more verbose than I'd like it to be. But $wait_key doesn't affect $display_filter. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hi, > > * Steve Talley [05/16/02 21:00:35 CEST] wrote: > > Rocco Rutte wrote: > > > * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: > > > > > > > This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. > > > > The output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a > > > > new message, and the old message is marked for deletion. > > > > > > I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this > > > problem but would break things completely up, at least in my > > > case because my filter produces some output I really do not want > > > to be written back to my box. > > > > Your filter could write the unwanted output to STDERR, which is > > displayed to the user but not included in the resulting message. > > Maybe I'm missing something, but in my case I saw quite a few > problems if I don't redirect stderr to stdout. I always had to > redraw the screen via ^L. Do you have $wait_key set? Steve
Re: filtering and patches (was "Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub")
Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * Steve Talley [05/16/02 21:00:35 CEST] wrote: % > Rocco Rutte wrote: % > > * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: % % > > > This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The ... % > > I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem % > > but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my % > > filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back % > > to my box. Be aware that this doesn't automatically make anything that gets processed by $display_filter get rewritten to the mailbox; you have to specifically filter a message, and you can use your $display_filter to do that if it's written to handle it. In this case, while it would be helpful, it wouldn't be transparent because you don't know (as in my ! example previously) that the message needs work. You could turn off your $display_filter and then filter-edit (as I like to call it, especially since I've forgotten the name of the new function provided by the patch :-) the message when you see a problem, but that's your call. % % > Your filter could write the unwanted output to STDERR, which is % > displayed to the user but not included in the resulting message. % % Maybe I'm missing something, but in my case I saw quite a few % problems if I don't redirect stderr to stdout. I always had to % redraw the screen via ^L. Yeah, stderr will hang around on your display 'cuz that likes to only manage stdout (after all, errors are for exceptional conditions and shouldn't be grabbed away by an app unless you really really mean it, like when you redirect to stdout). % % Cheers, Rocco. HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg28172/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * Steve Talley [05/16/02 21:00:35 CEST] wrote: > Rocco Rutte wrote: > > * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: > > > This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The > > > output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new > > > message, and the old message is marked for deletion. > > I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem > > but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my > > filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back > > to my box. > Your filter could write the unwanted output to STDERR, which is > displayed to the user but not included in the resulting message. Maybe I'm missing something, but in my case I saw quite a few problems if I don't redirect stderr to stdout. I always had to redraw the screen via ^L. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hi, > > * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: > > David T-G wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not > > > > syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. > > > > > > Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the > > > message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your > > > filter somehow. Note that it's up to you to figure out how you > > > should implement this in a transparent manner ;-) > > > > This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The > > output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new > > message, and the old message is marked for deletion. > > I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem > but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my > filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back > to my box. Your filter could write the unwanted output to STDERR, which is displayed to the user but not included in the resulting message. Steve
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * Steve Talley [05/16/02 19:19:39 CEST] wrote: > David T-G wrote: > > > It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not > > > syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. > > Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the > > message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter > > somehow. Note that it's up to you to figure out how you should > > implement this in a transparent manner ;-) > This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The > output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new > message, and the old message is marked for deletion. I don't why I've missed this one. It would really solve this problem but would break things completely up, at least in my case because my filter produces some output I really do not want to be written back to my box. But thanks for mentioning. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
* Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 12:12]: > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 11:32]: > > Hi, > > > > * Patrick [05/16/02 17:29:54 CEST] wrote: > > > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 09:04]: > > > > * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: > > > > > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; > > > > But the point is that not all dial-up connections are in the > > common blacklists while lots of them are. If you feel > > confident, try to deliver an email directly to my university's > > account (in From: header). A few mails I receive are simply > > forwards of bounces containing the original mail which was > > rejected. > > Well, I'm not necessairly confident, but GAME. Does it work?? I'll > only know if it bounces back to me (which may not happen) or you reply. oops, ?? > > > AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available > > > for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp > > > account?? > > > > I have to. Just because I'm too lazy to first try direct > > delivery and later via relay if I received a failure notice. > > I think that with SuSE direct delivery is the easiest. It did not > require any setup other than NOT setting mail to an smtp..xxx host. > > ps. I use postfix, not sendmail. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
David T-G wrote: > Steve, et al -- > > ...and then Steve Talley said... > > > David T-G wrote: > > > > > > syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. > > > > > > Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the > > > message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your > > > filter ... > > > > This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The > > Oh, right! I knew that this sort of thing sounded familiar, but > couldn't remember exactly how... > > > output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new > > message, and the old message is marked for deletion. > > Then he only has to worry about the message being appended at the > end, but sometimes that's just the way it goes :-) Right. But with sort=<...>, order within the mailbox is moot. :) Steve
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Steve, et al -- ...and then Steve Talley said... % % David T-G wrote: % % > > syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. % > % > Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the % > message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter ... % % This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The Oh, right! I knew that this sort of thing sounded familiar, but couldn't remember exactly how... % output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new % message, and the old message is marked for deletion. Then he only has to worry about the message being appended at the end, but sometimes that's just the way it goes :-) % % Steve Thanks & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg28156/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
David T-G wrote: > > It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not > > syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. > > Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the > message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter > somehow. Note that it's up to you to figure out how you should > implement this in a transparent manner ;-) This is handled by the filter_message patch, posted on 3/26. The output of your filter is integrated into your mailbox as a new message, and the old message is marked for deletion. Steve
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello again! % % * David T-G [05/16/02 18:03:06 CEST] wrote: % > ...and then Rocco Rutte said... ... % > % More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay % > % rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that % % > Right. So, having still not heard back from him(!!), % % It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not % syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. Why? That's what the filter is for; if you want to change the message, then you should 'e'dit it and pass it through your filter somehow. Note that it's up to you to figure out how you should implement this in a transparent manner ;-) % I look at your mail within mutt and see nothing special; so I % reply and suddenly see multiple exclamation marks (which were Sorry, dude!!! There, is that better?? % shortened to 1 by $display_filter)... ;-) (just a side note) You had me lost there for a minute. You might still :-) % % > Unfortunately, if he is at a low-ball ISP that cuts services *and* that % > ISP happens to be on the DUL, then he probably has no option but to % > switch ISPs, since that's probably as cost-effective as finding someone % > who will let him relay. % % Yes and no. Some freemail providers also offer POP-before-SMTP Hey, cool. I would *love* to find one of those. Do you know of a list? % which means that he has to find out how long his IP is cached. % For example, if this time limit is 15 minutes, just set up a Right. % cron job which runs fetchmail every 10 minutes and point % postfix (or whatever) to the freemail provider's relay. It % will then always work if the internet connection works. Yep. That's just the sort of thing I'd need for a couple of users I have. % % > Sometimes not even "low"; not only does Juno, for instance, not provide a % > relay, but neither does AOL (but we probably wouldn't want them to! :-) % % I don't know any providers over at your location which doesn't % matter. But AOL users may send mail, too with the access % software (which is probably not pppd ;-) so I guess that No, it sure ain't. I had to check into this in some detail recently, and the lowdown is that the only way to send mail out through AOL is to use their mailer. No, they don't block port 25, but they don't offer anything that listens to it, ether. % there's no need for a relay since dial-up users may be % authenticated by their line (and thus do not need any special % account). Right. AIUI that's how many ISPs do their dialup relaying since it's so much faster to check the address than to bother with actual authentication. % % Cheers, Rocco. HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg28154/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
* Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 11:32]: > Hi, > > * Patrick [05/16/02 17:29:54 CEST] wrote: > > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 09:04]: > > > * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: > > > > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; > > > > that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box > > > > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? > > > > ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs > > > may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up > > > lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people > > > forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver > > > simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which > > > run open relays so that there's much more spam going through > > > those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. > > > I have sent mail directly for ~3 years from dial-up and more recently > > >from cable-access and the ONLY time I have had a problem with my posts > > being accepted was when the from_envelope did not match the "from" > > address. I made the from_envelope match the "from" address and have > > had no more rejections. > > That's another kind of check. Some mail servers also check if > the IP you try to connect from matches the DNS name of the > HELO/EHLO command and vise versa. SMTP only requires any > destination to accept any mail; futher delivery process may be > blocked by any reason. > > But the point is that not all dial-up connections are in the > common blacklists while lots of them are. If you feel > confident, try to deliver an email directly to my university's > account (in From: header). A few mails I receive are simply > forwards of bounces containing the original mail which was > rejected. Well, I'm not necessairly confident, but GAME. Does it work?? I'll only know if it bounces back to me (which may not happen) or you reply. > > AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available > > for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp > > account?? > > I have to. Just because I'm too lazy to first try direct > delivery and later via relay if I received a failure notice. I think that with SuSE direct delivery is the easiest. It did not require any setup other than NOT setting mail to an smtp..xxx host. ps. I use postfix, not sendmail. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * David T-G [05/16/02 18:03:06 CEST] wrote: > ...and then Rocco Rutte said... > ... > % More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay > % rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that > Right. So, having still not heard back from him(!!), It doesn't match the subject anymore, but I hate mutt for not syncing my mailboxes with the output from my $display_filter. I look at your mail within mutt and see nothing special; so I reply and suddenly see multiple exclamation marks (which were shortened to 1 by $display_filter)... ;-) (just a side note) > Unfortunately, if he is at a low-ball ISP that cuts services *and* that > ISP happens to be on the DUL, then he probably has no option but to > switch ISPs, since that's probably as cost-effective as finding someone > who will let him relay. Yes and no. Some freemail providers also offer POP-before-SMTP which means that he has to find out how long his IP is cached. For example, if this time limit is 15 minutes, just set up a cron job which runs fetchmail every 10 minutes and point postfix (or whatever) to the freemail provider's relay. It will then always work if the internet connection works. > Sometimes not even "low"; not only does Juno, for instance, not provide a > relay, but neither does AOL (but we probably wouldn't want them to! :-) I don't know any providers over at your location which doesn't matter. But AOL users may send mail, too with the access software (which is probably not pppd ;-) so I guess that there's no need for a relay since dial-up users may be authenticated by their line (and thus do not need any special account). Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * Patrick [05/16/02 17:29:54 CEST] wrote: > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 09:04]: > > * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: > > > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; > > > that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box > > > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? > > ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs > > may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up > > lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people > > forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver > > simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which > > run open relays so that there's much more spam going through > > those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. > I have sent mail directly for ~3 years from dial-up and more recently > >from cable-access and the ONLY time I have had a problem with my posts > being accepted was when the from_envelope did not match the "from" > address. I made the from_envelope match the "from" address and have > had no more rejections. That's another kind of check. Some mail servers also check if the IP you try to connect from matches the DNS name of the HELO/EHLO command and vise versa. SMTP only requires any destination to accept any mail; futher delivery process may be blocked by any reason. But the point is that not all dial-up connections are in the common blacklists while lots of them are. If you feel confident, try to deliver an email directly to my university's account (in From: header). A few mails I receive are simply forwards of bounces containing the original mail which was rejected. > AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available > for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp > account?? I have to. Just because I'm too lazy to first try direct delivery and later via relay if I received a failure notice. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco, et al -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * David T-G [05/16/02 16:39:20 CEST] wrote: % > ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % > % * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: ... % > % > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? % > % % > % ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs % > % may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up ... % > % forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver % > % simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which % % > Aha -- but then he should be able to relay, and so he should call his % > tech support and find out why he can't, no? % % More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay % rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that Right. So, having still not heard back from him(!!), we don't know whether he was trying to relay through a supported channel or just trying to bounce off of someone else. Unfortunately, if he is at a low-ball ISP that cuts services *and* that ISP happens to be on the DUL, then he probably has no option but to switch ISPs, since that's probably as cost-effective as finding someone who will let him relay. % I've heard of providers not offering a mail relay to their % customers. You pay low money and haven't access to any Sometimes not even "low"; not only does Juno, for instance, not provide a relay, but neither does AOL (but we probably wouldn't want them to! :-) % services (because there aren't any). But I think the % majority of providers offers such. Yep. % % Depending on the quality of his ISP, he should get help. Maybe % he will have also have to figure it out on his own. We may never know! :-) % % Cheers, Rocco. :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg28145/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * David T-G [05/16/02 16:39:20 CEST] wrote: > ...and then Rocco Rutte said... > % * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: > % > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; > % > that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box > % > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? > % > % ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs > % may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up > % lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people > Understood. > % forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver > % simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which > Aha -- but then he should be able to relay, and so he should call his > tech support and find out why he can't, no? More correctly, he should be abled to use his ISP's relay rather then relaying on his own, yes. I'm quite sure that I've heard of providers not offering a mail relay to their customers. You pay low money and haven't access to any services (because there aren't any). But I think the majority of providers offers such. Depending on the quality of his ISP, he should get help. Maybe he will have also have to figure it out on his own. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
* Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05-16-02 09:04]: > Hi, > > * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: > > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; > > that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box > > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? > > ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs > may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up > lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people > forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver > simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which > run open relays so that there's much more spam going through > those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. I have sent mail directly for ~3 years from dial-up and more recently from cable-access and the ONLY time I have had a problem with my posts being accepted was when the from_envelope did not match the "from" address. I made the from_envelope match the "from" address and have had no more rejections. Of course, I have not been a spammer or strong agitater. AND, both my dial-up and cable providers had smtp accounts available for sending mail. Why not set sendmail to use your provider's smtp account?? > Of course, everybody with a dial-up line may try to send mail > directly but from time to time you will get bounces making you > use a relay, finally. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Rocco -- ...and then Rocco Rutte said... % % Hi, Hello! % % * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: % > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; % > that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box % > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? % % ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs % may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up % lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people Understood. % forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver % simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which Aha -- but then he should be able to relay, and so he should call his tech support and find out why he can't, no? If I've lost my clue, I welcome directions back to it :-) % run open relays so that there's much more spam going through % those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. Right. % % Of course, everybody with a dial-up line may try to send mail % directly but from time to time you will get bounces making you % use a relay, finally. Sure, and that's part of what you're paying for with your dialup line (or any other ISP). But, by the very nature of your being a dialup customer (that is, on their IP network), you should be able to use their relay, where the output I saw sure looked like it was from a server not in the business of customer relaying. % % Cheers, Rocco. HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg28138/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, * David T-G [05/16/02 15:47:11 CEST] wrote: > If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; > that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box > with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? ... because there're blacklist available which lots of MTAs may check a sender against. In most cases mails from dial-up lines are blocked; as a side effect the majority of people forced to use a relay are innocent and just want to deliver simple mail directly. Out there are those few bad apples which run open relays so that there's much more spam going through those channels instead of dial-up lines with direct delivery. Of course, everybody with a dial-up line may try to send mail directly but from time to time you will get bounces making you use a relay, finally. Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Kanagesh -- I don't know much about sendmail configuration any more (yay!) but it looks like you're trying to relay through a mail server that doesn't allow relaying (the 553 messages). That makes sense; most mail servers shouldn't relay. If this is your ISP's mail hub and you're supposed to be able to send out through it, then call your tech support and ask what's up. If it isn't their customer relay hub but that's what you intended, simply ask what relay server you should use. If you just want to relay instead of send, well, that's probably tough; that's what spammers do, and nobody likes that. You have a Linux box with a capable sendmail; why not just send your mail? HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg28134/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Hi, I made the changes in the sendmail.cf file and the mail to be sent is being sent to the relay host (mail.infinet.com) but after that it says that error in sending message, user unknown and times out. I tried to send the mail from the command line using Linux's inbuilt mail utility. I get the debug messages and the reason why it failed. But I guess it's pertaining to configuring sendmail. at the linux prompt, I type: # mail -v [EMAIL PROTECTED] (it then prompts me for the subject, the body and a CC. Once done, these are the messages I get) Connecting to [mail.infinet.com] via relay... 220 infinet.com ESMTP >>> EHLO ws130.ncoretech.com 250-infinet.com 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 0 250 8BITMIME >>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=90 250 ok >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) >>> RSET 250 flushed /home/kanagesh/dead.letter... Saved message in /home/kanagesh/dead.letter Closing connection to [mail.infinet.com] >>> QUIT 221 infinet.com I believe the relay host is trying to see if the two recipients are in it's domain. Since they are not, it says that the user is unknown. Can anyone suggest what should be done? I have the following entry in my /etc/sendmail.cf file for outgoing mail to be transferred to relay host: DS[mail.infinet.com] Thanks in advance, Regards, kanagesh dan radom wrote: > You cannot have sendmail and ssmail listening on port 25. only one or the other. >fetchmail doesn't have to pass mail off to a MTA like sendmail. It can be configured >to pass mail directly to a MDA like procmail. If you're using the built in pop >capabilities of mutt, you really don't need fetchmail. Fetchmail doesn't really need >sendmail, but it sounds like maybe your mackage manager believes it does. My >suggestion is to either stop sendmail from starting automatically if you're going to >use mutt's pop capabilities, and either use ssmail to send mails, or configure >sendmail to relay off of another server (DSmail.yourisp.com in sendmail.cf). Either >way it should work, and fetchmail doesn't have to deliver mail to a MTA. > > dan > > * Kanagesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am trying to use mutt to connect to a mailserver and receive/send > > mails. I have configured > > mutt for pop and I am albe to connect to the mailserver, access my > > mailbox and view my > > mails. However, I am not able to send mails from my system. From what > > I have read, I > > believe mutt internally uses Sendmail to send the mails out. I am > > looking at a simple e-mail > > application which just allows me to read and write mails (no queueing, > > postponing messages..) > > And I did read that for a simple use like this one, there was a > > suggestion to use ssmtp, which > > would just transfer the mail to the mailhub (i.e. my mail server) to do > > the delivery of the mail. > > I tried using ssmtp with mutt, but to no avail. The mails were still > > being sent out through Sendmail. > > So I uninstalled sendmail (and the applications which depend on sendmail > > - like fetchmaill). > > Now when I try to send mail from mutt, it says that "Error sending mail, > > child exited (127)" > > > > How do I get mutt to work with ssmtp? > > > > In the Muttrc file in the mutt directory (I am running mutt from it's > > directory itself, i haven't done > > a make install after having compiled the application) I have an entry, > > telling mutt to use ssmtp as: > > > > set sendmail="/usr/local/bin/sbin/ssmtp" > > > > I am running Redhat Linux 7.1 > > > > I would be grateful to any suggestion I receive to solve this problem. > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Regards, > > Kanagesh -- "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning" - Rich Cook
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Kanagesh wrote: > i made the change in the file sendmail.cf (DSmail.myisp.com) but when > i try to send mails did you change sendmail.cf directly? you shouldn't ever change sendmail.cf directly - create it using m4 from sendmail.mc. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
Kanagesh and all, I am having the exact same problem. I'm know a little bit of how email works out on the internet, but aparently I'm missing something as to where messages are being lost in the bit bucket. Let me summarize my situation and see if that helps any smarter people help us. I'm connected via a cable modem at comcast.net. I have a 5 computer network behind a linux router on a private 10.x.x.x network. My linux workstation (where I fetchmail my mail) is 10.1.1.101. I have tried to run a default installation of sendmail on that machine and have mutt handoff to sendmail who would try to deliver directly to the recipient. For most addresses that worked, but for others mail bounced with the message "550 cannot route to sender address". And technically that is correct... there is no route to 10.1.1.101 from the recipient's point of view. So then I tried the DSsmtp.comcast.net trick. Now about according to /var/log/maillog all my mail is "sent (OK.)", but about half of it gets lost in space without a bounce error of any sort. Can anybody help us? What is the best way to run a mail server from a non-routable ip address? -Mike Arrison On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:05:29PM +0530, Kanagesh wrote: > i made the change in the file sendmail.cf (DSmail.myisp.com) but when i try to send >mails > it is not being sent. It says mail sent, but it is not received at the destination. > Further it complains > Kanagesh >
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
i made the change in the file sendmail.cf (DSmail.myisp.com) but when i try to send mails it is not being sent. It says mail sent, but it is not received at the destination. Further it complains saying that "Error sending message, child exited 67 (user unknown)" when i send it to anyone other than "kanagesh" (my home directory is /home/kanagesh). Thanks in advance, Regards, Kanagesh dan radom wrote: > You cannot have sendmail and ssmail listening on port 25. only one or the other. >fetchmail doesn't have to pass mail off to a MTA like sendmail. It can be configured >to pass mail directly to a MDA like procmail. If you're using the built in pop >capabilities of mutt, you really don't need fetchmail. Fetchmail doesn't really need >sendmail, but it sounds like maybe your mackage manager believes it does. My >suggestion is to either stop sendmail from starting automatically if you're going to >use mutt's pop capabilities, and either use ssmail to send mails, or configure >sendmail to relay off of another server (DSmail.yourisp.com in sendmail.cf). Either >way it should work, and fetchmail doesn't have to deliver mail to a MTA. > > dan > > * Kanagesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am trying to use mutt to connect to a mailserver and receive/send > > mails. I have configured > > mutt for pop and I am albe to connect to the mailserver, access my > > mailbox and view my > > mails. However, I am not able to send mails from my system. From what > > I have read, I > > believe mutt internally uses Sendmail to send the mails out. I am > > looking at a simple e-mail > > application which just allows me to read and write mails (no queueing, > > postponing messages..) > > And I did read that for a simple use like this one, there was a > > suggestion to use ssmtp, which > > would just transfer the mail to the mailhub (i.e. my mail server) to do > > the delivery of the mail. > > I tried using ssmtp with mutt, but to no avail. The mails were still > > being sent out through Sendmail. > > So I uninstalled sendmail (and the applications which depend on sendmail > > - like fetchmaill). > > Now when I try to send mail from mutt, it says that "Error sending mail, > > child exited (127)" > > > > How do I get mutt to work with ssmtp? > > > > In the Muttrc file in the mutt directory (I am running mutt from it's > > directory itself, i haven't done > > a make install after having compiled the application) I have an entry, > > telling mutt to use ssmtp as: > > > > set sendmail="/usr/local/bin/sbin/ssmtp" > > > > I am running Redhat Linux 7.1 > > > > I would be grateful to any suggestion I receive to solve this problem. > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Regards, > > Kanagesh
Re: Sending Mails out of mutt to mailhub
You cannot have sendmail and ssmail listening on port 25. only one or the other. fetchmail doesn't have to pass mail off to a MTA like sendmail. It can be configured to pass mail directly to a MDA like procmail. If you're using the built in pop capabilities of mutt, you really don't need fetchmail. Fetchmail doesn't really need sendmail, but it sounds like maybe your mackage manager believes it does. My suggestion is to either stop sendmail from starting automatically if you're going to use mutt's pop capabilities, and either use ssmail to send mails, or configure sendmail to relay off of another server (DSmail.yourisp.com in sendmail.cf). Either way it should work, and fetchmail doesn't have to deliver mail to a MTA. dan * Kanagesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to use mutt to connect to a mailserver and receive/send > mails. I have configured > mutt for pop and I am albe to connect to the mailserver, access my > mailbox and view my > mails. However, I am not able to send mails from my system. From what > I have read, I > believe mutt internally uses Sendmail to send the mails out. I am > looking at a simple e-mail > application which just allows me to read and write mails (no queueing, > postponing messages..) > And I did read that for a simple use like this one, there was a > suggestion to use ssmtp, which > would just transfer the mail to the mailhub (i.e. my mail server) to do > the delivery of the mail. > I tried using ssmtp with mutt, but to no avail. The mails were still > being sent out through Sendmail. > So I uninstalled sendmail (and the applications which depend on sendmail > - like fetchmaill). > Now when I try to send mail from mutt, it says that "Error sending mail, > child exited (127)" > > How do I get mutt to work with ssmtp? > > In the Muttrc file in the mutt directory (I am running mutt from it's > directory itself, i haven't done > a make install after having compiled the application) I have an entry, > telling mutt to use ssmtp as: > > set sendmail="/usr/local/bin/sbin/ssmtp" > > I am running Redhat Linux 7.1 > > I would be grateful to any suggestion I receive to solve this problem. > Thanks in advance. > > Regards, > Kanagesh
