Re: [nmh-workers] sendmail/pipe default config?
>I'd like it to be able to perform more checks, and to display its output >in a better format. Well ... what are the more checks you would like it to do? I am not sure what all is possible in this day and age. But, in regards to "better format" ... I was thinking that it could be used as part of the tooling for encrypting email. Since post does alias expansion it would make sense that we could use it to get a list of envelope recipients. You could provide a switch like -format to give it a mh-format string to be run on every address. --Ken -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [nmh-workers] sendmail/pipe default config?
>Does 'whom -check' have any real relevance in today's world? It probably has a LITTLE relevance. If I use it I find that I can use it to check if local email addresses are valid (when I'm submitting to my work mail server). However, I never use that myself and I realize that the usage case is so small that I can't really justify keeping it. If someone else wants to kill it, I won't object. --Ken -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [nmh-workers] sendmail/pipe default config?
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 12:11:03 +1000, Alexander Zangerl said: > personally i think spending any further effort on verifying addresses for > deliverability on the sending side is wasted because of how little > verification/guarantee it provides (see bugs section in man whom). The only thing I've ever used 'whom' for is to verify that it picked the right Mike out of .mh_alias, or to see what the aliases expanded to. I've never expected any further validation than "this is a syntactically correct address", and wasn't even really aware that it *would* do further attempts at verification. But then, it's been 2 decades since I've actually used 'whom' on a system where validating the actual addresses was feasible. Does 'whom -check' have any real relevance in today's world? pgpvcqSesnAkz.pgp Description: PGP signature -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [nmh-workers] sendmail/pipe default config?
az writes: > it's been that way since 2003 when somebody complained about > smtp as default (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=152729); That issue was about submitting using smtpd versus directly to sendmail. Using the nmh sendmail/smtp mts would invoke sendmail directly, as requested, simply using the smtp protocol. sendmail/pipe uses sendmail -t, which causes sendmail to read the addresses from the draft. Its sole purpose is to replace the obsolete and undocumented mh spost. I don't think that sendmail/pipe offers any advantage here over sendmail/smtp, and has the disadvantage that sendmail/pipe does not support Dcc:. > >Re. sendmail/pipe, are these comments in post.c still valid? > > > >/* This won't work with MTS_SENDMAIL_PIPE. */ > >verify_all_addresses (1, eai, envelope, oauth_flag, auth_svc); > > as far as i can tell yes, because verify_all_addresses uses do_an_address > which > uses sm_wadr which talks smtp. Right, so verify_all_addresses() does work when the user has specified sendmail/pipe, though it uses sendmail/smtp, in effect, here. I'll update the comment. > personally i think spending any further effort on verifying addresses for > deliverability on the sending side is wasted because of how little > verification/guarantee it provides (see bugs section in man whom). Good point. I find "whom -check" to be useless or even misleading. David -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [nmh-workers] sendmail/pipe default config?
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 12:20:11 -0400, David Levine writes:
>> ---sysconfdir='$${prefix}/etc' \
>I assume that 3 dashes there is a typo.
indeed, cut and paste issue.
>> --with-mts=sendmail/pipe \
>
>Is that the best choice for a default configuration?
it's been that way since 2003 when somebody complained about
smtp as default (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=152729);
personally i prefer pipe for submission and nobody asked for a different
default yet, hence...
>Re. sendmail/pipe, are these comments in post.c still valid?
>
>/* This won't work with MTS_SENDMAIL_PIPE. */
>verify_all_addresses (1, eai, envelope, oauth_flag, auth_svc);
as far as i can tell yes, because verify_all_addresses uses do_an_address which
uses sm_wadr which talks smtp.
>/* It would be nice to have support to call
> verify_all_addresses with MTS_SENDMAIL_PIPE, but
> that might require running sendmail as root. Note
> that spost didn't verify addresses. */
this idea would also not work for postfix: its sendmail
emulation wrapper does have a '-bv' option, but one which never responds
to the invoking process (like real sendmail does); instead postfix
sends an email report back after verifying each recipient address.
personally i think spending any further effort on verifying addresses for
deliverability on the sending side is wasted because of how little
verification/guarantee it provides (see bugs section in man whom).
regards
az
--
Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 2FCCF66BB963BD5F + http://snafu.priv.at/
And God spoke: There shall be packets.
And there were packets, and these packets were good, mostly. -- G.S. Granados
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [nmh-workers] sendmail/pipe default config?
I wrote:
> verify_all_addresses() works for me with sendmail/pipe (on Linux).
That's because it (-whom) uses SMTP, as if sendmail/smtp was specified,
even if sendmail/pipe was specified. I'll update the comments to
something like:
/* Note that this will use fork and call sendmail directly, using
SMTP, (sendmail/smtp) even if sendmail/pipe is specified.
Not using SMTP might not work because:
Notice: -bv may give misleading output for non-privileged user */
verify_all_addresses (1, eai, envelope, oauth_flag, auth_svc);
if (msgflags & MVIS) {
if (sm_mts != MTS_SENDMAIL_PIPE) {
/* Addresses aren't verified with sendmail/pipe because
spost didn't. They could be because verify_all_address()
uses SMTP, see above. */
verify_all_addresses (verbose, eai, envelope, oauth_flag,
auth_svc);
}
post (tmpfil, 0, verbose, eai, envelope, oauth_flag, auth_svc);
}
Unless there's interest in enabling that verify_all_addresses() call
with sendmail/pipe?
David
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
[nmh-workers] sendmail/pipe default config?
az writes:
> ie. with a configure invocation of
> ---sysconfdir='$${prefix}/etc' \
I assume that 3 dashes there is a typo.
> --with-mts=sendmail/pipe \
Is that the best choice for a default configuration? It's easy
enough for the user to override, but with this default they
lose support for Dcc.
Re. sendmail/pipe, are these comments in post.c still valid?
/* This won't work with MTS_SENDMAIL_PIPE. */
verify_all_addresses (1, eai, envelope, oauth_flag, auth_svc);
and
if (sm_mts != MTS_SENDMAIL_PIPE) {
/* It would be nice to have support to call
verify_all_addresses with MTS_SENDMAIL_PIPE, but
that might require running sendmail as root. Note
that spost didn't verify addresses. */
verify_all_addresses (verbose, eai, envelope, oauth_flag,
auth_svc);
}
verify_all_addresses() works for me with sendmail/pipe (on Linux).
David
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
