Re: SMTP servers On-The-Go: how to share an SMTP server

[Robin Anson]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 at 17:51:28 +0200,Luca wrote:
>> >> > I'm trying to share an SMTP server between more than one account, but 
>> >> > the
>> >> > "shared" flag is not active. 
>> >> 
>> >> My TB! version has no "shared flag" in the account|transport settings, 
>> >> active or otherwise. 
>> >
>> > If you select "use SMTP servers on-the-go", then "configure", you get a
>> > "shared" checkbox, not working, for each server. Maybe in some next 
>> > build...
>> 
>> Where is this option to be found?
>
> Account/properties. 

Hmm, you must be running v5.

If you share your version number in your question it helps people resolve your
problems. Since I'm running v4, I cannot help you

-- 
Robin

Using The Bat! v4.2.44.2
  Windows 7 6.1 Build 7601 Service Pack 1
  Popfile v1.1.1



Current version is 4.2.42 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP servers On-The-Go: how to share an SMTP server

[Luca]

Robin Anson:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 at 21:08:24 +0200,Luca wrote:
> >> > I'm trying to share an SMTP server between more than one account, but the
> >> > "shared" flag is not active. 
> >> 
> >> My TB! version has no "shared flag" in the account|transport settings, 
> >> active or otherwise. 
> >
> > If you select "use SMTP servers on-the-go", then "configure", you get a
> > "shared" checkbox, not working, for each server. Maybe in some next build...
> 
> Where is this option to be found?

Account/properties. 

-- 
Luca - e-mail: p.stevens at linuxfan.it



Current version is 4.2.42 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP servers On-The-Go: how to share an SMTP server

[MAU]

Hello Luca,

> If you select "use SMTP servers on-the-go", then "configure", you get a
> "shared" checkbox, not working, for each server. Maybe in some next build...

You can't check or uncheck it directly with the mouse as one would 
expect, it does not work. But you can do it from context menu if you 
right click. However it doesn't seem to make any difference whether it 
is checked or not. 

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v5.1.6.7
My photos at: http://www.Rancho-K.com
My photoblog: http://mau.aminus3.com



Current version is 4.2.42 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP servers On-The-Go: how to share an SMTP server

[Robin Anson]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 at 21:08:24 +0200,Luca wrote:
>> > I'm trying to share an SMTP server between more than one account, but the
>> > "shared" flag is not active. 
>> 
>> My TB! version has no "shared flag" in the account|transport settings, 
>> active or otherwise. 
>
> If you select "use SMTP servers on-the-go", then "configure", you get a
> "shared" checkbox, not working, for each server. Maybe in some next build...

Where is this option to be found?

-- 
Robin

Using The Bat! v4.2.44.2
  Windows 7 6.1 Build 7601 Service Pack 1
  Popfile v1.1.1



Current version is 4.2.42 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP servers On-The-Go: how to share an SMTP server

[MFPA]

Hi


On Monday 30 July 2012 at 8:08:24 PM, in
, Luca wrote:


> If you select "use SMTP servers on-the-go", then
> "configure", you get a "shared" checkbox,

That must have been introduced later than v4.0.38.

-- 
Best regards

MFPAmailto:expires2...@rocketmail.com

It is easy to propose impossible remedies.

Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600  



Current version is 4.2.42 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP servers On-The-Go: how to share an SMTP server

[Luca]

MFPA:

> On Sunday 29 July 2012 at 9:04:53 AM, in
> , Luca wrote:
> 
> > I'm trying to share an SMTP server between more than one account, but the
> > "shared" flag is not active. 
> 
> My TB! version has no "shared flag" in the account|transport settings, 
> active or otherwise. 

If you select "use SMTP servers on-the-go", then "configure", you get a
"shared" checkbox, not working, for each server. Maybe in some next build...


-- 
Luca - e-mail: p.stevens at linuxfan.it



Current version is 4.2.42 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP servers On-The-Go: how to share an SMTP server

[MFPA]

Hi


On Sunday 29 July 2012 at 9:04:53 AM, in
, Luca wrote:



> I'm trying to share an SMTP server between more than one account, but the
> "shared" flag is not active. 

My TB! version has no "shared flag" in the account|transport settings, 
active or otherwise. But the two choices that spring to mind are:-

1. Write the same settings in each account that you want to share 
   them.
   
2. Set the SMTP server in your TB! accounts to "localhost" and use a 
   local SMTP server program on your own computer to relay to whatever 
   SMTP servers you wish (or to send directly).



> Is there a way to make an SMTP server available to all
> accounts at once?

See 2. above. I do that for several accounts at home; I don't have a
need for a laptop, so do not use it "on the go."



> Tnx.  (Sorry for my other message reposted... Gmane
> authorization problems.)  

Oops. I already commented on that...


-- 
Best regards

MFPAmailto:expires2...@rocketmail.com

An idealist is a person who helps other people to be prosperous

Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600  



Current version is 4.2.42 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Switching

[Neal Laugman]

Hello Marten and TBUDL,

Wednesday, May 30, 2007, 6:03:05 AM, you wrote:

> Since my long term request for a global confuiguration system for TB is
> obviously never going to happen...

Can't help you with your request, but I'm with you on the global SMTP
config. It's not the end of the world if it doesn't happen, but it
would be sweet, for sure.

-- 
Regards, Neal
   Using TheBat! v3.99.6 on Windows XP Service Pack 2



Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[WL]

Hello, all.

On 5/8/07, Luc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Good afternoon Roelof,

It was foretold that on 8/5/2007 @ 16:59:22 GMT+0200 (which was
11:59:22 where I live) Roelof Otten would write:



RO> My smtp setting for gmail are:


Mine are:

SMTP Server: smtp.gmail.com


Grr... tired of futzing with this. I recreated the imap account
with the exact same settings, and outgoing email works
on the newly created account. Not sure what's going on...

Now, to copy over my template settings

Thanks for the suggestions and help,

--
WL


Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[Luc]

Good afternoon Roelof,
  
It was foretold that on 8/5/2007 @ 16:59:22 GMT+0200 (which was
11:59:22 where I live) Roelof Otten would write:
  


RO> My smtp setting for gmail are:

RO> SMTP Server: smtp.gmail.com
RO> Connection: Secure to dedicated port (TLS)
RO> Port: 465
RO> Authentication:'Perform SMTP Authentication'  and  'Same user/password
RO> as for Mail Retrieval' selected and nothing else.  


Mine are:

SMTP Server: smtp.gmail.com
Connection: Secure to regular port (STARTTLS)
Port: 587
Authentication:'Perform SMTP Authentication'  and  'use specific
settings'

Might seem strange but initially i had problems sending mail and
fiddled with the settings... after 3 days, out of the blue, gmail
decided to go along with it and works fine now. Seems gmail needs some
time to think about it 

HTH
 
-- 
Best regards,
 Luc
 http://www.dzinelabs.com
 
---
Powered by The Bat! version 3.99.3 with Windows XP (build 2600),
version 5.1 Service Pack 2 and using the best browser: Opera.

"A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand."




Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo WL,

On Tue, 8 May 2007 08:10:32 -0500GMT (8-5-2007, 15:10 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

>> Often they're only blocking port 25. I see that you're using gmail and
>> they're using a different port. You could try to reach them.

W> Same problem: gmail says I need to be authorized first. Here's
W> the log using gmail's smtp server.

W>   [07:43:34]  C: Connected to smtp.gmail.com, port 465
W>   [07:43:34]  S: 220 mx.google.com ESMTP f24sm14853661pyh
W>   [07:43:36]  C: EHLO WL
W>   [07:43:36]  S: 250-mx.google.com at your service, [65.42.208.133]
W>   [07:43:36]  S: 250-SIZE 28311552
W>   [07:43:36]  S: 250-8BITMIME
W>   [07:43:36]  S: 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN
W>   [07:43:36]  S: 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
W>   [07:43:36]  C: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=305
W>   [07:43:36]  S: 530 5.5.1 Authentication Required f24sm14853661pyh

Yes, that's definitely different from my gmail account (for testing
purposes only) That shows:

[16:17:40]  C: Connected to smtp.gmail.com, port 465
[16:17:40]  S: 220 mx.google.com ESMTP z40sm791870ugc
[16:17:40]  C: EHLO BASILISK
[16:17:40]  S: 250-mx.google.com at your service, [217.122.181.180]
[16:17:40]  S: 250-SIZE 28311552
[16:17:40]  S: 250-8BITMIME
[16:17:40]  S: 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN
[16:17:40]  S: 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
[16:17:40]  C: AUTH PLAIN
[16:17:40]  S: 334 
[16:17:40]  C: Some gobbledygook
[16:17:41]  S: 235 2.7.0 Accepted
[16:17:41]  C: MAIL FROM: SIZE=475
[16:17:41]  S: 250 2.1.0 OK
[16:17:41]  C: RCPT TO:
[16:17:41]  S: 250 2.1.5 OK
[16:17:41]  C: DATA
[16:17:41]  S: 354 Go ahead

My smtp setting for gmail are:

SMTP Server: smtp.gmail.com
Connection: Secure to dedicated port (TLS)
Port: 465
Authentication:'Perform SMTP Authentication'  and  'Same user/password
as for Mail Retrieval' selected and nothing else.


-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

If the water is clean, you see the bottom, if dirty, you see yourself.
http://www.voormijalleen.nl/
The Bat! 3.99.3
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
2 pop3 accounts
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgpCCjkxrswwO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[WL]

Sorry, just a random sig test...

On 5/8/07, Roelof Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[snippaged]


Sig yes? It's weird... I thought it worked
before...  and emails sent to myself seem
to have the trailing space...

--
WL


Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[WL]

On 5/8/07, Roelof Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 8 May 2007 06:54:20 -0500GMT (8-5-2007, 13:54 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

W> In this case, the credentials have to be different. The ISP
W> blocks outgoing smtp traffic unless it goes through the ISP's
W> SMTP server.

Often they're only blocking port 25. I see that you're using gmail and
they're using a different port. You could try to reach them.


Same problem: gmail says I need to be authorized first. Here's
the log using gmail's smtp server.

 [07:43:34]  C: Connected to smtp.gmail.com, port 465
 [07:43:34]  S: 220 mx.google.com ESMTP f24sm14853661pyh
 [07:43:36]  C: EHLO WL
 [07:43:36]  S: 250-mx.google.com at your service, [65.42.208.133]
 [07:43:36]  S: 250-SIZE 28311552
 [07:43:36]  S: 250-8BITMIME
 [07:43:36]  S: 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN
 [07:43:36]  S: 250 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
 [07:43:36]  C: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=305
 [07:43:36]  S: 530 5.5.1 Authentication Required f24sm14853661pyh
 [07:43:36]  C: RSET
 [07:43:36]  S: 250 2.1.0 Flushed f24sm14853661pyh
 [07:43:36]  C: QUIT

Again, no AUTH.


BTW Can you send mail via your regular mail account at your ISP?


Oddly enough, I can. Here's the smtp log from that:

 [07:49:56]  C: Connected to smtp.att.yahoo.com, port 465
 [07:49:56]  S: 220 smtp113.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com ESMTP
 [07:49:58]  C: EHLO WL
 [07:49:58]  S: 250-smtp113.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com
 [07:49:58]  S: 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN XYMCOOKIE
 [07:49:58]  S: 250-PIPELINING
 [07:49:58]  S: 250 8BITMIME
 [07:49:58]  C: AUTH PLAIN
 [07:49:58]  S: 334 ok, go on
 [07:49:59]  S: 235 ok, go ahead (#2.0.0)

yay, auth... I went through and double checked the settings but
I still can't send email out. The only difference that may matter
is the non-sending account is really IMAP, and the second
account is POP. Having said that, I'm not sure how why or how it
would make a difference...

--
WL


Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo WL,

On Tue, 8 May 2007 06:54:20 -0500GMT (8-5-2007, 13:54 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

W> In this case, the credentials have to be different. The ISP
W> blocks outgoing smtp traffic unless it goes through the ISP's
W> SMTP server.

Often they're only blocking port 25. I see that you're using gmail and
they're using a different port. You could try to reach them.

BTW Can you send mail via your regular mail account at your ISP?

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

Where there's smoke, there's toast.
http://www.voormijalleen.nl/
The Bat! 3.99.3
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
2 pop3 accounts
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgpkBvlErbqd2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[WL]

On 5/8/07, Roelof Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hallo WL,

On Mon, 7 May 2007 19:28:54 -0500GMT (8-5-2007, 2:28 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

W> In the account properties, I have the smtp server using TLS.
W> The port is set to 465. In the authentication button, I
W> have Perform SMTP Authentication checked, with the specific
W> settings selected.

Try 'use same settings as mail retrieval'


In this case, the credentials have to be different. The ISP
blocks outgoing smtp traffic unless it goes through the ISP's
SMTP server.

Regardless of what username and password is used, the log
indicates the smtp authentication is not happening. I expected
to see something like

 C: AUTH LOGIN

before the MAIL FROM: line, or even

 C: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> AUTH=blahblah

but I don't see anything like that.


W>   [18:49:11]  C: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
W>   [18:49:11]  S: 530 authentication required - for help go to
W> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/sbc/dsl/mail/pop/pop-11.html

Did you follow that link?


Yes. It says to enable smtp authentication.

Hopefully, the cut sign will be intact

--
WL


Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp auth: what am I missing?

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo WL,

On Mon, 7 May 2007 19:28:54 -0500GMT (8-5-2007, 2:28 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

W> In the account properties, I have the smtp server using TLS.
W> The port is set to 465. In the authentication button, I
W> have Perform SMTP Authentication checked, with the specific
W> settings selected.

Try 'use same settings as mail retrieval'

W>   [18:49:11]  C: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
W>   [18:49:11]  S: 530 authentication required - for help go to
W> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/sbc/dsl/mail/pop/pop-11.html

Did you follow that link?


W> --
W> WL

Your cutsign is missing the trailing space.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you!
http://www.voormijalleen.nl/
The Bat! 3.99.3
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
2 pop3 accounts
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgp09XVVN7G2D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.99 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Log

[Dave Goodman]

Hello Marek,

> go to "Account properties", open "Transport" section and You will see
> "Protocol logging" section there.

Thank you, Marek. Apparently I'm not bright enough to expand the tree
under "Transport", so I never noticed it there. Appreciate the pointer.

-- 

Dave Goodman
The Bat! 3.95.6
AntispamSniper 1.8.0.7
Windows 2000 Service Pack 4





Current version is 3.98.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Log

[Marek Mikus]

Hello all,
Monday, March 19, 2007, Dave Goodman wrote:

> A detailed SMTP log (not the account log) can be turned on and off in
> TB! I know, because I turned it on some months ago. Now I cannot
> remember how to turn it off. Would some kind soul give me a clue?
> Thanks...

go to "Account properties", open "Transport" section and You will see
"Protocol logging" section there.

-- 

Bye

Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!
http://www.thebat.cz

Using the best The Bat! 3.98.6
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
with MyMacros,XMP,AnotherMacros, NOD32 Antivirus plugin and AntispamSniper v 
2.0.0.3

Notebook Toshiba, Core2 Duo 1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM


 




Current version is 3.98.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP problem solved

[Mica Mijatovic]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

   ***^\ ."_)~~
 ~( __ _"o   Was another beautiful day, Wed, 4 May 2005,
   @  @  at 12:41:19 +0200, when Vili wrote:

> I  reflected  the  _tone_  of  Peter's email. Read it again: "Well, if
> server  is OK and address is OK and server moans about address, either
> one must be not OK. Quite obvious, isn't it?"

> "Quite  obvious,  isn't it?" Do you feel the tone? I reflected to this
> _tone_... Not your first sentence.

Ah there, days of "hypersensitivity" ride again. No please, please no.
[By the voice of Eddie Murphy.] I can stand a hammer breaking my leg but
cannot stand a whining. It really ruins and tortures me. Please stop it.

Vili, beware of "nice" tone delivering bad information. (-; Peter
delivered a *good* one, stimulating you to think straightly. I really do
not see any..."tone" in it, being very "special". It indeed is quite
obvious and that's it.

- --
Mica
PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/
[Earth LOG: 245 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing]
OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium
 with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo
 and Vector via Wine...
 ~~~ For PM please use my full address as it is *exactly* given in my
 "From|Reply To" field(s). ~~~
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQFCeL4J9q62QPd3XuIRAiAOAJ9JL3wcEiZGZdBl0EHVMWbOnWEI7ACdFzD/
cdIP5n3CGJ5GE7ZI5XPGNvk=
=CBXf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP problem solved

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hello The,

On Wednesday, May 4, 2005 at 3:25:01 AM The [TBs] wrote:

TBs> I  did  not  change anything, the problem went away...

Glad to hear, glad for you.

TBs> So Peter (Palmreuther): it is not as obvious as you thought...

Above cited sentence tells me: it is. Obviously the server had a
problem in recognizing the recipients domain name as (syntactically)
correct, and this issue was fixed by the servers admin (or healed
itself if the cause was a lookup to a database and something modified
the database accordingly). It *is* obvious something on either server
side or in the recipients address was wrong.

TBs> I am happy, that you also learnt something from this case :))) If
TBs> nothing else, than this: if you don't have anything to say,
TBs> please be quiet.

*erm* OK. Guess you're the right one to distinguish if I've anything
to say or not. Thanks for your advice, you might have prevented me
from ending in a dead-end street because of me saying things albeit I
haven't to say any ...
-- 
Regards
Peter Palmreuther

(The Bat! v3.5 Return RC1 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2)

"I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the
nominating"



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP problem solved

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Vili & everyone else,

on 04-Mai-2005 at 03:25 you (The Bat! support) wrote:

> If nothing else, than this: if you don't have anything to say, please be
> quiet

With comments like this, I'd say you have to start with yourself.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

Freedom is not an essential and basic condition for the growth of
science; the care and diligence of government authorities are the most
important conditions for this development. -- Vasili N. Tatishchev



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP problem

[Gerard]

ON Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 1:50:18 PM, you wrote:
PP> Well, if server is OK and address is OK and server moans about
PP> address, either one must be not OK. Quite obvious, isn't it?

There might be a temporary outage. I have seen a few lately.
What is also possible is that your e-mail is rejected on other grounds by
the recipient and given this error to not make you any wiser.

Some server need you to be on the white list before you can send e-mail.


-- 
Best regards,
 Gerard 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The correlation between thinking well and making successful shots is not
100 percent. But the correlation between thinking badly and unsuccessful
shots is much higher.

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP problem

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Vili,

On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:21:24 +0200GMT (3-5-2005, 14:21 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

TBS>>> SMTP server is ok, the recipient email is ok, I get back this message:
TBS>>> 500 invalid domain name

TBS> ??? What does it exactly mean? This address I am sending from is
TBS> valid.

Here are the smtp reply codes:

RFC 821  August 1982
   Simple Mail Transfer Protocol

  4.2.1.  REPLY CODES BY FUNCTION GROUPS

 500 Syntax error, command unrecognized
[This may include errors such as command line too long]
 501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments
 502 Command not implemented
 503 Bad sequence of commands
 504 Command parameter not implemented

You're getting a 500, that's a syntax error, appended with the
remark 'invalid domain name', so my guess is that you're forgetting
something or you've got a dot in the name without quote marks around
it. Something like this: R.Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is incorrect while
this: "R.Otten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is okay, something like that could
cause such a reply as you got. When you really want an intelligent
answer from this list, you've got to come with more data, like the
exact From: header (and completenesss' sake an exact From: header too)
and the smtp-server you're using.

Just to be complete, here are the rest of the reply codes from rfc821.
 
 211 System status, or system help reply
 214 Help message
[Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a
particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only
to the human user]
  
 220  Service ready
 221  Service closing transmission channel
 421  Service not available,
 closing transmission channel
[This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it
must shut down]
  
 250 Requested mail action okay, completed
 251 User not local; will forward to 
 450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable
[E.g., mailbox busy]
 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
[E.g., mailbox not found, no access]
 451 Requested action aborted: error in processing
 551 User not local; please try 
 452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage
 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation
 553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed
[E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect]
 354 Start mail input; end with .
 554 Transaction failed

TBS> Is not it possible, that some error on the SMTP server cause this
TBS> error message?

Yeah sure, but in that case you'd never be able to send a message.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

Real SysOps hate authors of bad Shareware programs begging for money.

The Bat! 3.5 Return RC1
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN



pgp6sbp0g1j1x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP problem

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hello Vili,

On Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 2:30:57 AM Vili [V] wrote:

V> SMTP server is ok, the recipient email is ok, I get back this message:
V> 500 invalid domain name

V> What can be the problem?

Well, if server is OK and address is OK and server moans about
address, either one must be not OK. Quite obvious, isn't it?
-- 
Regards
Peter Palmreuther

(The Bat! v3.5 Return RC1 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2)

You can't underestimate the power of fear. - Tricia Nixon



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP problem

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Vili,

On Tue, 3 May 2005 02:30:57 +0200GMT (3-5-2005, 2:30 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

TBS> SMTP server is ok, the recipient email is ok, I get back this message:
TBS> 500 invalid domain name

When you're sure about those two, my guess would be that you're using
the wrong from address.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

This is just one humble opinion, collect the whole series

The Bat! 3.5 Return RC1
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN



pgpS0BWAelGWp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP/POP3 issues (2.12 beta/7)

[Leif Gregory]

Hello Nestor,

Monday, August 9, 2004, 1:57:29 PM, you wrote:
NF> I'm using The Bat! version 2.12 beta/7 in evaluation mode and
NF> discovered 2 issues that may be bugs:

You are using a very old beta. Try getting the new one, or install the
official 2.12 release (it's newer than that beta).



-- 
Leif Gregory (TB list moderator and fellow end user).

Tagline of the day:
Shchizphrenia beats being alone.

Using The Bat! 2.13 "Lucky" Beta/4 under Windows 2000 5.0
Build 2195 Service Pack 4 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB







Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Servers

[Johannes Posel]

Dear John,

On 13:27 23.06.2004, you [John Phillips] wrote...

>>   I need to change smtp server all the time :(.

> No need with your own SMTP server.

Then he would need no change the smarthost configuration each time,
because neither his mail program nor any SMTP server running on his
computer is allowed to connect to a remote mailserver. His ISP is
blocking it, there's nothing that a program or even a remote server he
could authenticate against could do about it.

Cheers,
 Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Servers

[John Phillips]

Hi Fredrik,
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, at 12:53:48 [GMT+0200] (which was 20:53:48 Australian
Eastern Time) you wrote:



> Actually I have a Laptop that I take with me to home and work, then
>   I need to change smtp server all the time :(.



No need with your own SMTP server.

-- 
John Phillips, Sydney, Australia

Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build  2600
Service Pack 1 

*IT IS* documented, look under "For Internal Use Only."



Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Servers

[John Phillips]

Hi Fredrik,
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, at 11:11:54 [GMT+0200] (which was 19:11:54 Australian
Eastern Time) you wrote:



JP>> Easy solution, get your own SMTP server which I fail to see how your isp can
JP>> stop you using.

> Actually, Telia (One of Swedens largest ISPs) blocks port 25 to stop
> spreading of viruses and SPAM :)

BigPond (commonly known in Australia as BigPong) also block Port 25; however
never had any problems with this using Mail Direct.

I believe they look up the address through some DNS Servers, or try to use
the MX records of the mail.

This mail is sent via Mail Direct, and it gets through!

-- 
John Phillips, Sydney, Australia

Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build  2600
Service Pack 1 

There has been opposition to every innovation in the history of man, with the possible 
exception of the sword.



Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Servers

[Urban]

Tuesday, June 22, 2004, Fredrik Bergström wrote:

> Actually, Telia (One of Swedens largest ISPs) blocks port 25

So connect through smtprelay.telia.com
It's all buried somewhere on their site. (They changed their DNS:es too,
so it might be worthwhile to take a look.)

-- 
Urban

My husband and I are either going to buy a dog or have a child. We can't
decide whether to ruin our carpets or ruin our lives. (Rita Rudner)


Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Servers

[Jonathan Angliss]

On Monday, June 21, 2004, John Phillips wrote...

>> This is probably off topic and the moderators will kill me, but
>> here we go :)

>> Here in Sweden our ISPs are trying to stop SPAM and Viruses by not
>> allowing connections to other SMTP servers than the one in the ISPs
>> network. This means that on my notebook I need to use one SMTP
>> server when I'm at home and one when I'm at work.

> Easy solution, get your own SMTP server which I fail to see how your
> isp can stop you using.

Quite easily... at the router level block port 25 connections to
anything but their SMTP servers. Running your own mail server then is
pointless. Also some ISPs don't allow you to run services, and doing
so introduces a breach of contract.

-- 
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Using The Bat! v2.12 Beta/1 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1

A preposition is what you don't end a sentence with. Um.


pgpxedlOxVWsa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Servers

[John Phillips]

Hi Fredrik,
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, at 16:28:21 [GMT+0200] (which was Tue, 0:28:21
Australian Eastern Time) you wrote:



> This is probably off topic and the moderators will kill me, but here
>   we go :)

>   Here in Sweden our ISPs are trying to stop SPAM and Viruses by not
>   allowing connections to other SMTP servers than the one in the ISPs
>   network. This means that on my notebook I need to use one SMTP
>   server when I'm at home and one when I'm at work.



Easy solution, get your own SMTP server which I fail to see how your isp can
stop you using.

Google is your friend;  I use Mail Direct.   http://www.ocloudsoft.com/

-- 
John Phillips, Sydney, Australia

Using The Bat! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1 Build  2600
Service Pack 1 

Four snack groups: frozen, crunchies, cakes and sweets.



Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Terry,

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:52:29 -0800GMT (1-4-04, 21:52 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

TGM> Is there anyway to figure out what the smtp address is of mail
TGM> received.

Please rephrase your question. It doesn't make any sense. There is no
such thing as an smtp address. There are smtp servers and clients and
there are ip addresses. To function properly those servers and clients
must be 'located' on an ip address, those addresses and the matching
servers can be read in the headers of a received message.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies 
or rabbits.



Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: smtp

[Peter Meyns]

Hi Terry,

on Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:52:29 -0800GMT, you wrote:

TGM> Is there anyway to figure out what the smtp address is of mail
TGM> received.

What do you mean? The first SMTP address used? Hit  to see all
headers of the mail. Here is what I got from your mail that I'm
replying to:

...
Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:54:00 +0200
Received: from [62.80.28.25] (helo=server01.clinservices.de)
by mxng08.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
id 1B98GG-ma-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:54:00 +0200
Received: from draenor.its-toasted.org (draenor.its-toasted.org [62.80.28.8])
by server01.clinservices.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
id D9D52274397; Thu,  1 Apr 2004 21:53:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp813.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.170.83])
by draenor.its-toasted.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B98F0-0001tb-VF
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:52:43 +0200
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.21.230?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED]@12.146.26.117 with plain)
by smtp813.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2004 19:52:33 -
...

So this last entry is probably the server the sender has used. But you
can't rely on that, as these headers can be faked...

If you really need to find out a mail's origin you might get help at
http://www.spamcop.net/

-- 
Cheers
Peter

Just that you're paranoid doesn't mean they are NOT after you.

Winamp currently playing: Beatles - She Said, She Said



Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer

[dAniel hAhler]

Hello bats,

on Sat, 14. Feb 2004 at 18:54:43 +0100 Johannes Posel wrote:

>> One in To:, 15 in CC.
J> When sending mail, there's no difference between To:, CC: and BCC:
J> addresses. Which ISP limits to 15 recipients?

See my Received: headers.. :)

J> That's a bit low, I feel...

ACK.
Could be that the limit is because they allow relaying (after
authentication).. but if a spammer would make use of this it wouldn't
hurt him to send packages of 15 rather than say 30 or sth.
It's bad, but I can live with that - though I setup Mercury/32 again
in case I need my own relaying server.


-- 
shinE!
http://www.thequod.de ICQ#152282665
GnuPG/PGP key: http://thequod.de/danielhahler.asc

Using The Bat! v2.03 Beta/61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
with POPFile 0.20.1 and avast Jan2004 (4.1.342)



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer

[Johannes Posel]

Dear dAniel,

On 03:40 08.02.2004, you [dAniel hAhler] wrote...

> One in To:, 15 in CC.

When sending mail, there's no difference between To:, CC: and BCC:
addresses. Which ISP limits to 15 recipients? That's a bit low, I
feel...

Cheers,
 Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Amnesia used to be my favorite word, but then I forgot it.




Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer

[Mark Wieder]

dAniel-

Saturday, February 7, 2004, 6:40:08 PM, you wrote:

dh> As said to Chris it has been sent..

dh> Strange.

Very strange. It probably depends on the software the ISP is using. My
experience with this before is that none of the messages were sent
until the addressee list was fixed up.

dh>>> This is so nasty..
R>> How many recipients did your message have?

dh> One in To:, 15 in CC.

Maybe that's the difference: you had the extra addresses in the CC:
line rather than the To: line. Even so, I wouldn't think 15 addresses
would be out of line.

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer

[dAniel hAhler]

Hello bats,

on Sat, 7. Feb 2004 at 17:32:07 -0500 Chris wrote:

>> So, question: has the message been sent (to at least all but
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED])?
>> Or does "5.0.0 Need RCPT" indicate that the RCPT list has been deleted
>> on the server after receiving too many?

C> Based on this line:
>>  07.02.2004, 22:47:59: SEND  - connection finished - 0 messages sent
C> I'd say that no one got the message.

That's simply thebat's interpretation of things.. and the mail got
sent indeed, as I got a reply.

But I dunno if the last mentioned user was also being mailed to..


-- 
shinE!
http://www.thequod.de ICQ#152282665
GnuPG/PGP key: http://thequod.de/danielhahler.asc

Using The Bat! v2.03 Beta/53 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
with POPFile 0.20.1 and avast Jan2004 (4.1.342)



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer

[dAniel hAhler]

Hello bats,

on Sun, 8. Feb 2004 at 00:56:26 +0100 Roelof Otten wrote:

dh>> Or does "5.0.0 Need RCPT" indicate that the RCPT list has been deleted
dh>> on the server after receiving too many?
R> Most likely.

As said to Chris it has been sent..

Strange.

dh>> This is so nasty..
R> How many recipients did your message have?

One in To:, 15 in CC.

dh>> I think I'll try PostCast SMTP server again..
dh>> or build up a PHP mailer for things like that on my host's server.
R> Another possibility is to use TB's mass mailing features.

Good idea. I should have thought of that..
Thanks for the instructions, though I did this some time ago.

R> I'd forget about a PHP mailer.

But this would be quite cool.

Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject as is and text like
that:
[[REMAILER:
TO: 
TOADDRS: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], ..
]]
Text follows.. could even handle macros like %FNAME etc.. (if that
would be supplied in [[ METADATA ]]

But it would mean to code this, though there has to be sth like that
already somewhere, but quite hard to find, imo.


-- 
shinE!
http://www.thequod.de ICQ#152282665
GnuPG/PGP key: http://thequod.de/danielhahler.asc

Using The Bat! v2.03 Beta/53 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
with POPFile 0.20.1 and avast Jan2004 (4.1.342)



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer

[Chris]

dAniel hAhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> @ 7-Feb-2004 5:19:38 PM
"SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer" 



> So, question: has the message been sent (to at least all but
> [EMAIL PROTECTED])?
> Or does "5.0.0 Need RCPT" indicate that the RCPT list has been deleted
> on the server after receiving too many?

Based on this line:
>  07.02.2004, 22:47:59: SEND  - connection finished - 0 messages sent
I'd say that no one got the message.

-- 
Chris
Quoting when replying to this message is good for your karma.

Today's Oxymoron: Almost exactly

Using The Bat! v2.02.3 CE on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP: too many recipients / own SMTP server / PHP mailer

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo dAniel,

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:19:38 +0100GMT (7-2-04, 23:19 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:

dh> So, question: has the message been sent (to at least all but
dh> [EMAIL PROTECTED])?

Don't count on that.

dh> Or does "5.0.0 Need RCPT" indicate that the RCPT list has been deleted
dh> on the server after receiving too many?

Most likely.

dh> This is so nasty..

How many recipients did your message have?

dh> I think I'll try PostCast SMTP server again..
dh> or build up a PHP mailer for things like that on my host's server.

Another possibility is to use TB's mass mailing features.
Create a Quick Template that contains your message and check 'Use for
new message/mass mailing'
Go to the address book select the group you want to send your message
to and do:
  File -> Mass mailing using template -> choose your template
This will create a message for each recipient.
When each message has its own recipient, TB's macros can personalize
your message and the messages won't be refused, since they haven't got
multiple recipients.

Drawback is that you'll be sending lots of message via your own
bandwidth, compared to sending one message with multiple recipients to
your ISP's smarthost. But the same drawback would apply to using
PostCast Server (or any other).

I'd forget about a PHP mailer.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[Oliver Wolfram]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [Freitag, 30. Januar 2004, 20:22:53]:

> I think I might be getting a little confused here. Are you using
> SMTPS, or just SMTP Authentication such as CRAM-MD5? From the subject,
> I assumed SMTPS, but from what I keep reading in some emails, it seems
> like just authentication.

I am using SMTPS (port 465). If you have a look at the log file earlier in this
thread, TheBat still tries to authenticate primarly using MD5, don't
ask me why.

Regards,
Oliver


-- 
PGP welcome.  Click [ http://www.oliverwolfram.de/pgp.txt ] for my public key. 
  Fingerprint:   0294 8249 8EE6 D4C0 DFB2 F3A2 ED5F AD45 C90B 6C05





Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[Jonathan Angliss]

On Friday, January 30, 2004, Oliver Wolfram wrote...

>> The whole point of smtps is so that text isn't sent in plain clear
>> text over the internet, you won't be able to use telnet to connect
>> directly to the server, you'd have to introduce something into the
>> loop... stunnel... which he already says using works fine.

> I haven't tried with stunnel yet, you're wrong here Jon, mainly
> because it does work with OE, but maybe it would be helpful just to
> see exactly what is going on.

I think I might be getting a little confused here. Are you using
SMTPS, or just SMTP Authentication such as CRAM-MD5? From the subject,
I assumed SMTPS, but from what I keep reading in some emails, it seems
like just authentication.

-- 
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

"La Quinta." Spanish for "Next to Denny's."


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[Oliver Wolfram]

Hi,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [Freitag, 30. Januar 2004, 18:19:12]:

> The whole point of smtps is so that text isn't sent in plain clear
> text over the internet, you won't be able to use telnet to connect
> directly to the server, you'd have to introduce something into the
> loop... stunnel... which he already says using works fine.

I haven't tried with stunnel yet, you're wrong here Jon, mainly
because it does work with OE, but maybe it would be helpful just to
see exactly what is going on.

>> "Once connected to an SMTP server, The Bat! checks which of the
[...]
> Hrm... I think there may be a little confusion here... smtps is
> connecting to an SMTP server using TLS/SSL... the above is used when
> that method isn't used as there is no point encrypting a password in
> an already encrypted mechanism. Though there is nothing really
> stopping you from doing it though I guess.

He was referring to my log file posted above and may have a point
there. I was getting an error message "Authentication failed", which
may as well refer to the MD5 thing, which is never happening, because
the server doesn't support it. This seems to be a feature in TheBat,
trying to achieve maximum security, it'll just go on authenticating
"plain" (actually encrypted) when MD5 is not supported.

However, this doesn't explain why the message doesn't get sent
according to the log file (but in fact is).

Will now try to answer your questions in TBBETA, Jon. :)

Thanks for your help, folks!

Cheers,
Oliver


-- 
PGP welcome.  Click [ http://www.oliverwolfram.de/pgp.txt ] for my public key. 
  Fingerprint:   0294 8249 8EE6 D4C0 DFB2 F3A2 ED5F AD45 C90B 6C05



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[Jonathan Angliss]

On Friday, January 30, 2004, Terry wrote...

>> Really nobody who can help me here?

[..]

> Have you tried connecting to SMTPS via telnet and sending a message
> that way? You may get more information that could point to a
> problem.

The whole point of smtps is so that text isn't sent in plain clear
text over the internet, you won't be able to use telnet to connect
directly to the server, you'd have to introduce something into the
loop... stunnel... which he already says using works fine.

> "Once connected to an SMTP server, The Bat! checks which of the
> server's RFC-2554-authentication mechanisms is available, and
> chooses the most secure. Even when "Require secure (MD5)
> authentication" is off, if the server does supports it, secure
> authentication will take place."

Hrm... I think there may be a little confusion here... smtps is
connecting to an SMTP server using TLS/SSL... the above is used when
that method isn't used as there is no point encrypting a password in
an already encrypted mechanism. Though there is nothing really
stopping you from doing it though I guess.

-- 
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

On the other hand, you have different fingers.


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[Oliver Wolfram]

Hello Marck,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [Freitag, 30. Januar 2004, 12:30:44]:

> I recommend joining TBBETA and discussing the issues there so that
> RITlabs can get involved. Put something into the BugTraq system
> about it.

Posted a message to TBBETA. Thanks for your feedback.

Cheers,
Oliver


-- 
PGP welcome.  Click [ http://www.oliverwolfram.de/pgp.txt ] for my public key. 
  Fingerprint:   0294 8249 8EE6 D4C0 DFB2 F3A2 ED5F AD45 C90B 6C05



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Oliver,

@30-Jan-2004, 11:28 +0100 (30-Jan 10:28 UK time) Oliver Wolfram [OW]
in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Oliver:

>> Hello fellow Bat-ers,

OW> Really nobody who can help me here?

Apparently not. It sounds like a bug to me. Or strict adherence to
RFC in the face a server that doesn't. OE cuts a lot of corners and
ignores a lot of quirks that it perhaps should not.

I recommend joining TBBETA and discussing the issues there so that
RITlabs can get involved. Put something into the BugTraq system
about it.

-- 
Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator
TB! v2.03.47 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1
'

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[MAU]

Hello Oliver,

> Really nobody who can help me here?

Looks like it. I have no experience with SMTP-S myself, sorry.

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v2.01.3
Winamp OFF:



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP-S issue

[Oliver Wolfram]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [Donnerstag, 29. Januar 2004, 17:40:55]:

> Hello fellow Bat-ers,

Really nobody who can help me here?

Thanks,
Oliver

-- 
PGP welcome.  Click [ http://www.oliverwolfram.de/pgp.txt ] for my public key. 
  Fingerprint:   0294 8249 8EE6 D4C0 DFB2 F3A2 ED5F AD45 C90B 6C05



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hello Johannes,

On Saturday, July 26, 2003 at 2:47:24 PM you [JP] wrote (at least in
part):

>> As it seems the server does expect end enforce the "parameter passing"
>> method when AUTH=PLAIN is used. To sum it up: it's a stupid server and I
>> wouldn't really care as at least AUTH=LOGIN works.

JP> We notice this on Exim, both 3.x and 4.x, together with Outlook
JP> Express clients. So I'd rather go for stupid client >;-)

W/o context I'd instantly agree on "Lookout Quickly" being stupid
clients :-)

Nevertheless I may quote from RFC-2554:

,- [ http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2554.txt ]
| 4. The AUTH command
| 
|AUTH mechanism [initial-response]
|
|  Arguments:
|  a string identifying a SASL authentication mechanism.
|  an optional base64-encoded response
|  [...]
|  Discussion:
|  [...]
|  The authentication protocol exchange consists of a series of
|  server challenges and client answers that are specific to the
|  authentication mechanism. [...]
| 
|  The optional initial-response argument to the AUTH command is
|  used to save a round trip when using authentication mechanisms
|  that are defined to send no data in the initial challenge.
|  When the initial-response argument is used with such a
|  mechanism, the initial empty challenge is not sent to the
|  client and the server uses the data in the initial-response
|  argument as if it were sent in response to the empty challenge.
`-

Therefore I call every implementation _ENFORCING_ '[initial-response]'
buggy and stupid :-) If this applies to Exim I'm sorry, but it doesn't
make it better :-)

N.B.: I'd prefer if TB! would try to make use of 'initial-response'
itself, as this /can/ speed up communication. But as AUTH in general
is working it'd call it a *very* minor priority issue :-)
-- 
Regards
Peter Palmreuther
(The Bat! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1)

Winners at the card party were William Davenport, a turkey, and Mrs.
Trudy Baker, a chicken.



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Johannes Posel]

Dear Peter,

On 19:51 25.07.2003, you [Peter Palmreuther] wrote...

> As it seems the server does expect end enforce the "parameter passing"
> method when AUTH=PLAIN is used. To sum it up: it's a stupid server and I
> wouldn't really care as at least AUTH=LOGIN works.

We notice this on Exim, both 3.x and 4.x, together with Outlook
Express clients. So I'd rather go for stupid client >;-)

Cheers,
 Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
> Wenn jemand einen Feed fuer Chemnitz anzubieten hat ... immer her
> damit. chemnitz.* fehlt mir noch.
findest du bei den oldfarts wahrscheinlich immer noch unter
karl-marx-stadt.*
 ~ Frank Paulsen in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Alexander]

25-Jul-2003 19:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> To sum it up: it's a stupid server and I
> wouldn't really care as at least AUTH=LOGIN works.

Thanks for the explanation. Well, with the dozens of ways to authenticate
these days, who'd mind a poor little server get confused? :-)

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de)

The wave of the future is coming, and there is no fighting it. -- Anne M.
Lindbergh



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hi Alexander,

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:22:11 +0200 Alexander wrote:

 (You may remember that I could not achieve the necessary SMTP
 authentication while _sending mail_  from The Bat through ChoiceMail.)
 
>>> Just one question - the test mail you were sending with Netscape, did
>>> you send it through ChoiceMail, or directly to the SMTP server?
 
>> It's as if this Netscape client can work with ChoiceMail (and SMTP) in
>> ways that The Bat cannot.

> Hmmm. Thats what I was suspecting. I have the feeling that TB is not as
> "fault tolerant" for misbehaving SMTP-servers, or something. Here's what
> happens to me *every* time...
> 
>  25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - sending mail messages - 1 messages in queue
>  25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - connected to SMTP server
>  25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - authenticating (plain)...
>  25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - Server reports error. The response is: 
> Incorrect authentication data 
>  25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - authenticating (login)... 
[...]
> The message is sent, but only after an initial error. It would be
> interesting to see what the server actually "says", but I don't know how to
> intercept the command/reply exchange.

What it actual says is "Incorrect authentication data".
The server does not like the way TB! authenticates using method "PLAIN".
There're two ways using PLAIN.
- "Challange-Response", i.e. server asks for username, client responds,
  server asks for password, client responds.
- parameter passing. i.e. client sends not only 'AUTH PLAIN' as command
  but 'AUTH PLAIN '.
  The Bat! is, IIRC, not capable of the latter way. And RFC does not
  enforce authentication being done the "parameter" way, it only says
  this /CAN/ be done this way.

As it seems the server does expect end enforce the "parameter passing"
method when AUTH=PLAIN is used. To sum it up: it's a stupid server and I
wouldn't really care as at least AUTH=LOGIN works.
-- 
Ciao,
 Pit


Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Alexander,

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:22:11 +0200 GMT (25/07/03, 17:22 +0700 GMT),
Alexander wrote:

> The message is sent, but only after an initial error. It would be
> interesting to see what the server actually "says", but I don't know how to
> intercept the command/reply exchange.

You can do that with Ehteral (www.ethereal.com).

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Um zu antworten, bitte die From-Zeile mit ROT13 bearbeiten. Danach mit
MD5 hashen, zeichenweise den ASCII-Code um 2 erhoehen (mod 57) und
erneut um 63 erhoehen. Dann mit der urspruenglichen Adresse x-oren.
Schliesslich am Ergebnis erfreuen und so antworten wie gewohnt.

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Alexander]

25-Jul-2003 03:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>>> (You may remember that I could not achieve the necessary SMTP
>>> authentication while _sending mail_  from The Bat through ChoiceMail.)

A>> Just one question - the test mail you were sending with Netscape, did you
A>> send it through ChoiceMail, or directly to the SMTP server?

> It's as if this Netscape client can work with ChoiceMail (and SMTP) in
> ways that The Bat cannot.

Hmmm. Thats what I was suspecting. I have the feeling that TB is not as
"fault tolerant" for misbehaving SMTP-servers, or something. Here's what
happens to me *every* time...

 25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - sending mail messages - 1 messages in queue
 25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - connected to SMTP server
 25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - authenticating (plain)...
 25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - Server reports error. The response is: Incorrect 
authentication data
 25.07.2003, 12:12:17: SEND  - authenticating (login)...
 25.07.2003, 12:12:18: SEND  - sending message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 25.07.2003, 12:12:18: SEND  - message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent (1034 bytes)
 25.07.2003, 12:12:18: SEND  - connection finished - 1 messages sent

The message is sent, but only after an initial error. It would be
interesting to see what the server actually "says", but I don't know how to
intercept the command/reply exchange.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de)

An aggrieved public does not draw the fine line between "Good" science and
"Bad" technology... you and I know that Frankenstein was the doctor, not
the monster. But it would be well to remember that the people of the
village, angered by the monster, marched against the doctor. -- Lyndon
Johnson



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Alexander]

23-Jul-2003 20:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> (You may remember that I could not achieve the necessary SMTP
> authentication while _sending mail_  from The Bat through ChoiceMail.)

Just one question - the test mail you were sending with Netscape, did you
send it through ChoiceMail, or directly to the SMTP server?

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de)

I used to be with it, but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm
with isn't it, and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me - Abe Simpson
(1998)



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[MAU]

Hello David,

> Now, I apparently still have spam protection thanks to Choicemail AND
> also outgoing SMTP authentication.

Glad to know you have solved the problem :-)

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[David Austen]

Hello, all:,



1. (David,) Have you tried it with ChoiceMail shut down, i.e. connecting 
directly using TB?

Yes. And THIS time it works. That is, SMTP on both send and receive. 
Without CMail active or even in the chain.

2. What is TB log telling you when you try?

(Please see log in previous past.)

 - - - - - - -

What is the behavior?  Does it just hang? Time out?

Error message comes up saying authentication is necessary.
 - - - - -
Ctrl+Shift+A will get you to the log.

I am unfamiliar with ChoiceMail, but I just had this problem when I
moved some things around and changed some software.  I had been using
a different SMTP server for a couple of accounts and had the "Use
Specific Settings" box checked.
My System is Win 98SE on an Athon processor. There is a fire wall
included with the DSL modem, and I have checked to be sure that SMTP is
allowed. Does anybody have any ideas or better, some "deep" experience
with all the SMTP settings in the Bat, or firewalls?
 - - - - - -
What is the modem model?  What is the firewall?  I'd guess it had
nothing to do with either, but better to ask the question now.  :)
(Can I delay answering these questions for a bit longer?)
 - - - - - -
Is it just me or is it weird that a spam program is handling SMTP?
AFAIK, Popfile, Spampal, etc., handles only POP.  Spam is incoming,
not outgoing, or have those crafty spammers figured out something new?
Since spam is only incoming, that would alleviate the necessity of
using ChoiceMail with SMTP and connecting directly with the server if
that's what the problem is.
This is an excellent point.

--
Terry
Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3


Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[David Austen]

Hi Terry, all:

Here are some of the recent logs:

 7/23/03, 12:29:40: FETCH - connected to POP3 server
 7/23/03, 12:30:00: SEND  - sending mail messages - 1 messages in queue
 7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - connected to SMTP server
 7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - authenticating (plain)...
 7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - WARNING: authentication failed
 7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - sending message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - Server reports error. The response is: 
authentication required - for help go to 
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/sbc/dsl/mail/pop/pop-11.html
!7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - Server reports error. The response is:
!7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - Server reports error. The response is:
 7/23/03, 12:30:01: SEND  - connection finished - 0 messages sent
 7/23/03, 12:30:02: SEND  - Some messages were not sent - check the log 
for details
 7/23/03, 12:30:19: FETCH - authenticated (plain)
 7/23/03, 12:30:20: FETCH - 1573 messages in the mailbox, 0 new
 7/23/03, 12:30:21: FETCH - connection finished - 0 messages received
 7/23/03, 12:32:40: FETCH - receiving mail messages
 7/23/03, 12:32:40: FETCH - connected to POP3 server
 7/23/03, 12:33:15: FETCH - authenticated (plain)
 7/23/03, 12:33:17: FETCH - 1573 messages in the mailbox, 0 new
 7/23/03, 12:33:17: FETCH - connection finished - 0 messages received
 7/23/03, 12:35:41: FETCH - receiving mail messages
 7/23/03, 12:35:41: FETCH - connected to POP3 server
 7/23/03, 12:36:17: FETCH - authenticated (plain)
 7/23/03, 12:36:19: FETCH - 1575 messages in the mailbox, 2 new
 7/23/03, 12:36:20: FETCH - Received message from CBS MarketWatch 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size: 21318 bytes, subject: "Thom 
Calandra's StockWatch: How a 40-year-old hardware maker dons the tech cloak"
>7/23/03, 12:36:20: FETCH - received message from 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (21318 bytes) (processed by "CBS MarketWatch")
 7/23/03, 12:36:20: FETCH - Received message from Mary Bull 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size: 3011 bytes, subject: "Re: SMTP 
authentication difficulty in The Bat"
>7/23/03, 12:36:20: FETCH - received message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(3011 bytes) (processed by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
 7/23/03, 12:36:24: FETCH - connection finished - 2 messages received



With thanks,

David




Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Mary Bull]

Hello David!

On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, 11:11 AM, you wrote, in part:

D> But it makes me curious about the purpose of this box ["Use
D> Settings of Mail Retrieval."] and the actual affect this would
D> have.

I'm curious, also. I was pretty sure you would have already done such
a simple thing, knowing what an experienced computer user you are.

So--maybe one of the others, Terry, or Peter Palmreuther, or Miguel,
or one of the other specialists here, will be able to give you some
help.

Best of luck.

-- 
Best regards,
Mary

The Bat! 1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[David Austen]

Hello, Mary:

I appreciate your suggestion. Actually, I have had that box  (MB> "Use 
Settings of Mail Retrieval.") ticked for
some time and that does not help.

But it makes me curious about the purpose of this box, and the actual 
affect this would have.

BTW, I also tried POP authentication and that did not help.

With thanks,

David




Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hi David,

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:27:21 -0400 David Austen wrote:

>  But I am unable to configure The Bat to send mail with SMTP 
>  authentication through ChoiceMail.

What do the logs say?[tm] 

++A should reveal an error message we'll need for better
"guessing".
-- 
Ciao,
 Pit


Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Terry]

Hi David,

On Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 3:27 PM, David wrote:

> But I am unable to configure The Bat to send mail with SMTP
> authentication through ChoiceMail. (The Bat will still POP mail just
> fine.)

Have you tried it with ChoiceMail shut down, i.e. connecting directly
using TB?

What is TB log telling you when you try?  What is the behavior?  Does
it just hang? Time out?

Ctrl+Shift+A will get you to the log.

I am unfamiliar with ChoiceMail, but I just had this problem when I
moved some things around and changed some software.  I had been using
a different SMTP server for a couple of accounts and had the "Use
Specific Settings" box checked.

> My System is Win 98SE on an Athon processor. There is a fire wall 
> included with the DSL modem, and I have checked to be sure that SMTP is 
> allowed. Does anybody have any ideas or better, some "deep" experience 
> with all the SMTP settings in the Bat, or firewalls?

What is the modem model?  What is the firewall?  I'd guess it had
nothing to do with either, but better to ask the question now.  :)

Is it just me or is it weird that a spam program is handling SMTP?
AFAIK, Popfile, Spampal, etc., handles only POP.  Spam is incoming,
not outgoing, or have those crafty spammers figured out something new?
Since spam is only incoming, that would alleviate the necessity of
using ChoiceMail with SMTP and connecting directly with the server if
that's what the problem is.

-- 
Terry

Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[Mary Bull]

Hello David!

On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, 9:27 AM, you wrote:

D> But I am unable to configure The Bat to send mail with SMTP 
D> authentication through ChoiceMail. (The Bat will still POP
D> mail just fine.)

Try Account/Properties/Mail Transport and click on the authentication
button beside the SMTP dialogue. In the authentication dialogue, tick
"Use Settings of Mail Retrieval."

Might work. Or not, for you.

Last month when my dial-up ISP subcontracted to another server service
I had hours of getting POP3 downloads and was not able to send out on
SMTP. The new server, vipdirect.com, had never heard of The Bat! But by
trial-and-error I stumbled on this solution.

Just thought I'd tell about it, in case--

-- 
Best regards,
Mary

The Bat! 1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication difficulty in The Bat

[MAU]

Hello David,

> But I am unable to configure The Bat to send mail with SMTP
> authentication through ChoiceMail. (The Bat will still POP mail just
> fine.)

Have you tested and been able to send mail with SMTP authentication
WITHOUT going through ChoiceMail?

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication problem

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hi Omar,

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:46:11 -0300 Omar Colocci wrote:

[webhosts SMTP-AUTH ain't working]
> but the webhost returns the message "child crashed (#4.3.0)". When I
> disable the authentication it returns "Sorry, that domain isn't in my
> list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)".

Well ... that sounds like a qmail error message to me and makes me
think: your webhoster uses and runs an imperfectly patched and/or set up
qmail installation.
The "Sorry, that domain ..." message is normal: you don't have relaying
privileges w/o authentication. You could try if 'POP-before-SMTP' is
set up (chances are your webhoster uses vpopmail on top of qmail and if
not disabled "roaming users" access by POP-b4-SMTP is active).
Additionally you can write a message to webhosters support about the
'child crashed' error, for whatever reason the password checker don't
like either your authentication data (it might run with wrong
permissions) or it get's these data feeded in the wrong format.

You can give them a hint about how to figure out the source of your
problem: they should attach a 'strace' (if running Linux) or 'truss' (if
running *BSD) to the password checker to figure out what makes the
"child crash". A medium to good administrator should have figured out
the reason within a short amount of time then and be able to take
necessary actions for correcting the misbehavior.
-- 
Ciao,
 Pit


Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication problem

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Omar,

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:46:11 -0300 (Hora padrão leste da Am. Sul) GMT (16/07/03, 09:46 
+0700 GMT),
Omar Colocci wrote:


> The main difference I notice is that my ISP (works) uses a simple username
> for the servers' login: "omarsc" for the email [EMAIL PROTECTED] The webhost
> s server require the full email address as username login. Both offer the
> same step by step tutorial for Outlook Express configuration, but the
> webhost returns the message "child crashed (#4.3.0)". When I disable the
> authentication it returns "Sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> rcpthosts (#5.7.1)".

My idea is that you post the OE configuration tutorial here, and we
"translate" it into TB.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

In an office: WOULD THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE STEP LADDER YESTERDAY
PLEASE BRING IT BACK OR FURTHER STEPS WILL BE TAKEN.

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP authentication problem

[Douglas Hinds]

Hello Omar and other TB! listers following this thread,

On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 at exactly 9:46:11 PM, Omar wrote about
"SMTP authentication problem" and said the following:

OC> I have two email accounts. One if of my ISP and the other from
OC> my webhost using my domain name. Both of them require SMTP
OC> authentication, and the ISP works fine with The Bat! but not the
OC> webhost's server.

Is it designed to work with email clients also?

OC> Weird is that I moved from another webhost that also required
OC> SMTP authentication and faced the same problem, reason why I had
OC> to move to Outlook Express (ouch!).

OC> The main difference I notice is that my ISP (works) uses a
OC> simple username for the servers' login: "omarsc" for the email
OC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] The webhost s server require the full email
OC> address as username login. Both offer the same step by step
OC> tutorial for Outlook Express configuration, but the webhost
OC> returns the message "child crashed (#4.3.0)". When I disable the
OC> authentication it returns "Sorry, that domain isn't in my list
OC> of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)".

Does it require "pop before smtp"?

OC>  What, in the name of the Gods, may it be??

You may have to talk to whoever's in charge of the website's email
server.

OC> Please, help me getting back to my "decent" email client

You probably noticed that TB! provides a number of options when
configuring smtp authentication.

Go to account properties / transport and put the smtp server's
address in place, as well as the type of connection, regular or
one of two types of secure connection, as well as the port to be
used.

Then, clicking on authentication, you'll find smtp authentication
rfc 2554 and "use pop before smtp authentication". You might need
one or the other or both. When using the first, you have another
three choices.

Curiously, I too have a similar problem which I'll throw out for the
list to chew on. Yesterday I opened two new free email accounts,
both of which are 15 mb and work with email clients like TB! and
both require authentication.

One of the two is Russian  and even shows a link for
configuring The Bat! - although the link doesn't work.

I got the imap / pop server to download my mail but had to use my
myrealbox server to send with, for now.

On the other account  the opposite occurred. I was
able to send mail with it but not receive - which is rather odd
considering I used "pop before smpt authentication", and used the
same login data I used to access my mail on their website

I mention their urls in case anyone wants to take a look and maybe
open an account, since 15 mb is more than most provide. Registration
with the first is easy while the second requires a lot of detailed
information, which it sometimes rejects - I'll bet it's in the USA.

In any case, I wrote both for support on this issue (and gawab sent
back an automated response telling me that the support address given
on their website doesn't exist - par for the course). It
nevertheless sent me a FAQ.

I can use another good account or two, since only 6 of the original
16 free accounts I actually used are working well, with only 3 mail
servers.

-- 

Douglas



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Authentification

[Markus Gloede]

Hi,

Barry Higginbottom wrote in msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :

>  I am changing my email account with my ISP. The new account when
>  used with OE requires the "My server requires authentification"
>  checkbox to be checked.

>  What is the equivalent setting in TB?

>  There seem to be so many settings I don't know which to tick!

Navigate to Account/Properties/Transport
Under "Send mail" you'll find the button "Authentication", click it and
put a checkmark next to "Perform SMTP Authentication (RFC 2554)". Change
further settings in this dialog as they apply to your circumstances.

HTH.

Regards,

Markus
-- 
Using The Bat! 1.63 Beta/6 under Windows NT 4.0 Build
1381 Service Pack 6 



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP Authentification

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Barry,

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:22:47 +GMT (13-2-03, 17:22 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:

BH> I am changing my email account with my ISP. The new account when
BH> used with OE requires the "My server requires authentification"
BH> checkbox to be checked.

 account -> properties -> transport -> send mail: authentication
 -> Check: Perform SMTP authentication RFC2554

That ought to do it.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP login problem

[Scott Frederick]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Melissa,

Saturday, November 23, 2002, 11:06:43 AM, you wrote:

MR> Have you considered upgrading your TB! to v1.61 to see if that
MR> would make any difference?

OK, I have upgraded, reset the Transport settings to what I was given
by the administrator and it seems to work now.

Thanks for helping with this.

MR> Another option you might want to consider is to run your own local
MR> SMTP server...like "Mercury":

MR> http://www.pmail.com/overviews/ovw_mercury.htm

- --

Best regards,
 Scottmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! 1.61 under Windows 98 4.10 Build   A
pgp key:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=PGPPubKey1&Body=Please%20send%20keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 6.5.8ckt (build/08)

iQA/AwUBPd/lSPTKQBm9muNPEQL/FQCghndAKqJ7e0jf1sfAUrF71n6YKJIAn0lh
NNKDaicfax/ZgOGS+sOw3SdJ
=UpKU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP login problem

[Scott Frederick]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Melissa,

Saturday, November 23, 2002, 11:06:43 AM, you wrote:

MR> Have you considered upgrading your TB! to v1.61 to see if that
MR> would make any difference?

I will try that now. Usually I hang a version or two behind the
bleeding edge unless there is a need.

MR> Another option you might want to consider is to run your own local
MR> SMTP server...like "Mercury":

The problem has been worked around, so I probably won't need to go
that far yet.

- --

Best regards,
 Scottmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! 1.60h under Windows 98 4.10 Build   A
pgp key:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=PGPPubKey1&Body=Please%20send%20keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 6.5.8ckt (build/08)

iQA/AwUBPd/VzvTKQBm9muNPEQJg9gCgsGupiw+JngLVfc+dCnXN4x0wLnwAn2i0
oCEVU++tr8eG4cr3MZqjTPHV
=nOvF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP login problem

[Melissa Reese]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 10:39:20 AM PST, Scott Frederick
wrote:

> There is no mail.whatever in my Transport settings but the server
> logs show that The Bat! is sending it with mail added.

That's very peculiar...I've never experienced that problem. Have you
considered upgrading your TB! to v1.61 to see if that would make any
difference?

Another option you might want to consider is to run your own local
SMTP server...like "Mercury":

http://www.pmail.com/overviews/ovw_mercury.htm

Melissa
- -- 
PGP public keys:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=0xFB04F2E9&Body=Please%20send%20keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iEYEAREDAAYFAj3f0aYACgkQjVbXUvsE8ulBLACeNqLugS/AQlmFhPjkUWEXayqg
CFIAnReYaZ1yXDQUoyCfsU3IVQ9wdAXX
=Zj/+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP login problem

[Scott Frederick]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Melissa,

Saturday, November 23, 2002, 10:34:08 AM, you wrote:

MR> You can easily change it to whatever the proper server name is. If
MR> you didn't make the adjustment when you first created the account,
MR> you can go to "Account Properties/Transport" and change it there.

There is no mail.whatever in my Transport settings but the server logs
show that The Bat! is sending it with mail added.

- --

Best regards,
 Scottmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! 1.60h under Windows 98 4.10 Build   A
pgp key:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=PGPPubKey1&Body=Please%20send%20keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 6.5.8ckt (build/08)

iQA/AwUBPd/LSPTKQBm9muNPEQLMwwCdHBqeVQhf1fOrFl7naKIMtwY4RH0An1kU
aIrfHjseqES9POeaTgsZmOPr
=DVU4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP login problem

[Melissa Reese]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 9:47:11 AM PST, Scott Frederick
wrote:

> Some of the accounts require "mail" to be in front of the server
> name and others do not. It seems as though The Bat! is adding "mail"
> when it is not there, causing a login failure on those accounts.

Hi Scott,

Perhaps when you're first setting up an account, TB! will, in an
attempt to save you some time, put the often used "mail..." in as part
of the *assumed* server name.  However...this is really only a
suggestion on the part of TB!

You can easily change it to whatever the proper server name is.  If
you didn't make the adjustment when you first created the account, you
can go to "Account Properties/Transport" and change it there.

Melissa
- -- 
PGP public keys:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=0xFB04F2E9&Body=Please%20send%20keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iEYEAREDAAYFAj3fygYACgkQjVbXUvsE8uk+oQCgkWVI6tggB4/GyCxBw9xS8gB+
29kAnRXTUjP4N5H1/+lxKGDV2Op/AVZo
=iMue
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP login problem

[Peter Meyns]

Hi Scott,

on Sat, 23 Nov 2002 09:47:11 -0800GMT (23.11.02, 18:47 +0100GMT here),
you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :

SF> Some of the accounts require "mail" to be in front of the server name
SF> and others do not. It seems as though The Bat! is adding "mail" when
SF> it is not there, causing a login failure on those accounts.

I don't believe this. Some of my accounts use auth.smtp.provider.com and it
works without problems. Actually, this message will be sent by The Bat!
without any "mail" in the SMTP-server's name... :-)

There must be another reason for this problem.

-- 
Cheers
Peter

"The joyfulness of a man prolongeth his days."
New Testament

Winamp currently playing: Savoy Brown - Raw Sienna - Needle And Spoon



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SMTP server report

[Jonathan Angliss]

Hi John,
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:32:30 +1000, you wrote:

> I can't speak of course for any one else, but in my case I travel a lot
> (international);  I use GRIC for global access.  However now days a lot of
> SMTP servers won't accept mail from me (spamming ???), so I find using my own
> SMTP server has overcome this problem.

That confused me for a second, I was trying to work out the link between mail
servers not accepting, and DNS servers, and suddenly realised you'd gone back to
the mail server question ;)  A lot of mail servers won't relay mail from a
non-local service (for example a member of their dial-up services).  I'd have
thought GRIC would offer their own SMTP server that should work just fine, I
could be wrong though.

-- 
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])


Current Ver: 1.61
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP server report

[John Phillips]

Hello Jonathan
You wrote  On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, at 16:16:09 [GMT -0500] (07:16:09 Monday, 15 July 2002 
where I live):-

> Just out of curiousity, what is wrong with your ISPs DNS servers?  Why do you
> need to run your own servers?


I can't speak of course for any one else, but in my case I travel a lot
(international);  I use GRIC for global access.  However now days a lot of SMTP
servers won't accept mail from me (spamming ???), so I find using my own SMTP
server has overcome this problem.

BTW I use Mail Direct, very simple but not free.  www.ocloudsoft.com

-- 
Regards,
John Phillips   Sydney, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HTML mail & spam not welcome.

Using Bat! 1.60q 7BE05C47 - Being used by Windows 98 4.10 Build   ASony Vaio 
Notebook PCG-505TS Pentium 300 64meg ram


Excellent time to become a missing person. 



Current Ver: 1.61
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP server report

[Syafril Hermansyah]

On  Sun, 14 Jul 2002 at 17:06 GMT -0500 (15/07/2002 5:06 where you think
I live) "Jonathan Angliss"=[JA] wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] :

>> Even  on  Cox  Cablevision's broadband, sometimes the DNS response is
>> slow.  And  using  a  modem,  DNS  is  immensely better if one runs a
>> caching-only nameserver on the local machine.

> I can understand using a caching-only DNS server, saves repeatitive lookups,
> hence time... but you still have to do the initial lookup.  You may want to look
> into trying other DNS servers if your ISP is slow at responding.  Which I guess
> is what you're doing now ;)

I agree, try your neighbor ISP DNS server might help :-)
I  can  understand  the  need  of  DNS  cache for Mercury users, because
Mercury  doesn't  have  his own cache as MDaemon or most Linux MTA have.
But  IMHO DNS Forwader more appropriate especially for ADSL/Cable users,
querying to root DNS takes a lot of times sometimes.

-- 
Best regards,

- Syafril -   mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Flying with The Bat! 1.61
under Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2



Current Ver: 1.61
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP server report

[Syafril Hermansyah]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:35:49 -0500 "Jonathan E. Brickman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Anyone have a caching-only DNS server they like for Win32 ???

IIRC lot of Mercury users using DNSplus, but the better one is BIND
4.9.8 porting by Kahn (see www.isc.org), it is run under win9x too (if
you're using NT or W2K, the DNS is built in).


-- 
syafril
---
Syafril Hermansyah<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP server report

[Cricket]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday, July 13, 2002 Jonathan E. Brickman stated:


>> Did you try X-Ray?

JEB> Did not. Didn't know it existed! Just looked at its web page. If the
JEB> web page description is complete, it is not what I want. I want SMTP
JEB> which sends directly to destinations, not something to hand-off to my
JEB> ISP's SMTP server.

Or Advanced Direct Remailer ?
It has the _OPTION_ of handing off to your ISP if it fails direct
deliver after x attempts. You can also withhold delivery for any last
second manipulations of the header lines or text,if needed.

Cheers Y'all
- -Cricket

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: Cricket's mark
Comment: KeyID: 0x1438A23E
Comment: Fingerprint: 283F 61F0 EC6F 3FB5 6E4A  14FA 4B21 8DA2 1438 A23E

iQA/AwUBPTCkQEshjaIUOKI+EQLsLgCdG0Kl1wJTqh9ff2W/6Zpu+Ak7QJMAoJr2
q3JTMzvRy94KDKK9ak5zErNM
=N9vf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP server report

[Tim Musson]

Hey Jonathan,

My MUA believes 'The Bat! (v1.60q) Personal' was used
to write [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Saturday, July 13, 2002 at 3:07:00 PM.

JEB>>> I have tried several SMTP servers recently.  All were
JEB>>> overcomplicated in configuration...except the newest
JEB>>> MERCURY/32. It is marvelous.

>> Which ones did you look at? Will be looking myself soon I think.

JEB> Ayii! So many that I don't remember most of them.

Did you try X-Ray?

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! eMail v1.60q
Windows 2000 5.0.2195 (Service Pack 2)
Why is it that to stop Windows 2000, you still have to click on "Start"?



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP server report

[Tim Musson]

Hey Jonathan,

My MUA believes 'The Bat! (v1.60q) Personal' was used
to write [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Saturday, July 13, 2002 at 2:35:49 PM.

JEB> I have tried several SMTP servers recently.  All were
JEB> overcomplicated in configuration...except the newest MERCURY/32.
JEB> It is marvelous.

Which ones did you look at? Will be looking myself soon I think.

JEB> Anyone have a caching-only DNS server they like for Win32 ???

No, sorry, but you might check
 They might have a
suggestion (you could also sign up for the list and ask if
interested).

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! eMail v1.60q
Windows 2000 5.0.2195 (Service Pack 2)
Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP Transport configuration

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hello Damian,

On Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 11:20:31 PM you [DG] wrote (at least in
part):

>> So if the cert is (self) signed for 'mail.me.com' you'll have to use
>> 'mail.me.com' in account!!!

DG> Already done.  I'll try to find out how to import the public key...

Save the public key in a textual file, preferred extended '.pem'.
if you do use the 'internal' S/MIME implementation open the address
book entry for your server, go to 'Certificates' tab and 'Import' one
... the text file you've saved the public key to.

When using 'MS-Crypot API' for S/MIME you'll have to import the
.pem-file in e.g. Internet Explorer settings / Content / Certificates
into 'Trusted Root certification Authorities'

>> The Bat! uses 'CRAM-MD5' not 'DIGEST-MD5'. So if you _require_ it to
>> use 'CRAM-MD5' it cannot authenticate at all as this method ain't
>> offered by your MTA.

>> 'AUTH PLAIN' & 'AUTH LOGIN' should work nevertheless.

DG> Ah -- thanks.  I'll recompile the libraries to provide CRAM-MD5.

Do so ... if done you'll not even need to tell The Bat! using
CRAM-MD5, it will do automatically, as it chooses the most secure
authentication method available. So if your server announces CRAM-MD%
capabilities in it's EHLO-greeting The Bat! will automatically choose
it. The 'Require' is only to make sure that if the server drops
CRAM-MD5 capabilities for any reason (e.g. ISP renews the server and
forgets to compile CRAM-MD5 into it) it will not try to send your
password in plain text.

So .. as long as this is _your_ server there's no real need to enable
the 'Require ..' unless you expect somebody might 'hijack' your server
and you'll be sure never giving out the plain text password (which
should be your smallest problem if the server is hacked *GGG*)

HTH Pit.

P.S.: One thing left:

To avoid THIS:

> 
> Current Ver: 1.60q
> FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
> Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
> Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

being in replies it's a good idea to follow the welcome message and
insert a signature delimiter at least below your mail, ideally above
your signature.
A signature delimiter is '-- ' followed by 
(), all on one line, at the very beginning
and the only content of that line. The 'space' _is_ important.

If you want to re-read the welcome message it's located here:

http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/subtbudl.txt
-- 
Regards
Peter Palmreuthermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Bat! v1.60q on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1)

"I don't drink water. Fish fuck in it" - W. C. Fields



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP Transport configuration

[Damian Gerow]

Spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 6/20/2002, at 23:05:02 +0200:
> You do need.
> You'll have to import it's public key into a newly created entry in
> 'Root CA'. The latter _is_ important.
> Moreover the CN in certificate has to match exactly the server name
> you've entered in account settings.

> So if the cert is (self) signed for 'mail.me.com' you'll have to use
> 'mail.me.com' in account!!!

Already done.  I'll try to find out how to import the public key...

DG>> And secondly, SMTP AUTH seems to be broken?

> cannot confirm.

DG>> Using standard authentication,

> Should work.

And works exactly as it is supposed to.

DG>> I log in fine via AUTH LOGIN.  If I require MD5 login authentication (radio
DG>> button option), I don't try anything at all:

> Quite normal.

> The Bat! uses 'CRAM-MD5' not 'DIGEST-MD5'. So if you _require_ it to
> use 'CRAM-MD5' it cannot authenticate at all as this method ain't
> offered by your MTA.

> 'AUTH PLAIN' & 'AUTH LOGIN' should work nevertheless.

Ah -- thanks.  I'll recompile the libraries to provide CRAM-MD5.



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP Transport configuration

[Peter Palmreuther]

Hello Damian,

On Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 10:02:26 PM you [DG] wrote (at least in
part):

DG> And a couple more questions on the Transport configuration, SMTP section.

DG> I can't seem to get TLS to work properly with my mail server.  I can see
DG> that it transmits the certificate, but then dies very shortly afterwards.
DG> It's a self-signed cert -- do I need to import it into TB!?

You do need.
You'll have to import it's public key into a newly created entry in
'Root CA'. The latter _is_ important.
Moreover the CN in certificate has to match exactly the server name
you've entered in account settings.

So if the cert is (self) signed for 'mail.me.com' you'll have to use
'mail.me.com' in account!!!

DG> And secondly, SMTP AUTH seems to be broken?

cannot confirm.

DG> Using standard authentication,

Should work.

DG> I log in fine via AUTH LOGIN.  If I require MD5 login authentication (radio
DG> button option), I don't try anything at all:

Quite normal.

The Bat! uses 'CRAM-MD5' not 'DIGEST-MD5'. So if you _require_ it to
use 'CRAM-MD5' it cannot authenticate at all as this method ain't
offered by your MTA.

'AUTH PLAIN' & 'AUTH LOGIN' should work nevertheless.
-- 
Regards
Peter Palmreuthermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Bat! v1.60q on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1)

Don't diet, download a virus to remove the FAT.



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/

Re: SMTP servers

[Allie C Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thomas F [TF] wrote:
...
ACM>> MDaemon here can be configured to use an SMTP host in the sense
ACM>> that it delivers mail to another SMTP server, usually your ISP
ACM>> SMTP server instead of doing a direct delivery.

TF> OK then, why would I need MDaemon in the first place?

That's besides the point. You made the statement:

,-[ begin ]->>
|
| You need to stay connected until the mail is actually delivered. Out
| of the question for me on per-minute dial-up. Same holds true for an
| SMTP server on my machine.|
|
'-[  end  ]-||

Using a local SMTP server doesn't necessarily mean you'll have to do a
direct delivery and have to wait while it does so.

This was the point I was making.

A local mail-server isn't necessarily a waste of money for those using
a dial-up connection. Not necessarily true at all. I've found that
MDaemon connects and negotiaties with POP and SMTP servers faster than
TB!. It actually has a great support for unattended dial-up. It could
actually be a cost saver ... but I'm not really writing this to make
you change how you do things. You're already happy with your method
that's quite OK. Only you would know what works best for you. However,
this may not be the case for others who could greatly benefit by using
their own local servers. It's not an overkill solution in many
instances where it's initially perceived as being so.

- --
 -=Allie C Martin=-
List Moderator | TB! v1.60m | Windows XP Pro
PGP/GPG Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=2B0717E2
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQE87/Q1V8nrYCsHF+IRAmIwAKDNwJNJaay071SMT8iVbl7BKtPzagCg4Kvf
q0n5S8incf8GkU7VlzD3jN0=
=CqmM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Syafril Hermansyah]

On Sun, 26 May 2002 01:18:29 +0700 Thomas F <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> ACM> MDaemon here can be configured to use an SMTP host in the sense
> ACM> that it delivers mail to another SMTP server, usually your ISP
> ACM> SMTP server instead of doing a direct delivery.
> 
> OK then, why would I need MDaemon in the first place?

Depending on your need though :-)
These are some benefit for Dial Up users :

- While sending mail to more than one recipient : MDaemon only create
one session connection (single mail with multiple address).
- We can set auto compress if message larger than x KB (x =
configurable).
- First attempt delivery go directly to MX Recipient, if failed send to
relay host.
- Download mail from DomainPOP mailbox base on message size (smaller
first).
- Remote Configuration through mail command (change password, set/unset
auto forward etc).

-- 
syafril
=
Syafril Hermansyah<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Thomas F]

Hello Allie,

On Sat, 25 May 2002 12:57:19 -0500 GMT (26/05/02, 00:57 +0700 GMT),
Allie C Martin wrote:

TF>> You said it. I used myrealbox this for three years when I lived in
TF>> Taiwan, and regardless which ISP I was connected to, it always
TF>> delivered all my mails from any account. :-)

ACM> At what speed?

Acceptable. With my different accounts, I use SMTP servers in Asia,
Europe, and USA. The SMTP server for this one account is in the States
(see headers).

ACM> Slower than your ISP's SMTP server I'd bet.

My cable ISP in Taiwan was EThome.net.tw. In general, I was quite
happy with the cable speed (broadband). They do provide an SMTP
server, but after a short while, it was listed on ORBL, and some of my
message were returned by the receiving servers (including
ritlabs.com). I called EThome and they didn't even know what I was
talking about, which resulted in a very educational (for them) email
exhange. Finally the SMTP server address was changed, but for some
reason, I always got the error message "could not connect to server".
My way out was myrealbox.com for my Hinet.net account at least:

My main account was on hinet.net. When you are connected via another
ISP, they will not allow you to use the their SMTP server. Sometimes I
had to dial in through them (EThome being a small company and Hinet
being the state-owned Big Guy), but this meant I kept switching.

On a side note, my mother is on AOL. They don't provide a standard
SMTP server. When I am in Germany and connected through my mother's
AOL account, I use the myrealbox.com SMTP server for my mail on other
ISPs.

TF>> No need to install an SMTP server on your computer.

ACM> When I still had my dialup account, I used to use your method but it
ACM> was too slow. There was too much of a delay while the SMTP server was
ACM> being looked up and then accessed.

My experience differs. When I had an SMTP server installed on my
system, (using the cable modem and its flat rate) of course it tried
to connect the the recipients' servers individually. Those servers
where for some reason not always immediately accessible. Each time an
access attempt was unsuccessful, I got an error message. As annoying as
that was, it meant that I had to stay online until the message was
sent. Sorry, I'd rather decide myself when I go to bed. ;-)

With myrealbox, you just send the message out. Let them deal with any
connection problems. Easy as that. :-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

31. 'Stewardesses' is the longest English word that is typed with only
the left hand.

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.60k
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM



Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Thomas F]

Hello Allie,

On Sat, 25 May 2002 12:54:14 -0500 GMT (26/05/02, 00:54 +0700 GMT),
Allie C Martin wrote:

ACM> MDaemon here can be configured to use an SMTP host in the sense that
ACM> it delivers mail to another SMTP server, usually your ISP SMTP server
ACM> instead of doing a direct delivery.

OK then, why would I need MDaemon in the first place?

ACM> Mercury will also do the same.
[...]

ACM> Does that help you Thomas? :-)

Not really. As long as can use a ISP's SMTP server, I just throw my
mails their way and let them deal with it. :-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

12. Next Sunday a special collection will be taken to defray the cost
of the new carpet. All those wishing to do something on the new
carpet will come forward and do so.

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.60k
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM



Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Jonathan Angliss]

Hi Thomas,
On Sat, 25 May 2002 13:36:06 +0700, you wrote:

> Hello Reza,
> 
> On Fri, 24 May 2002 15:29:46 -0400 GMT (25/05/02, 02:29 +0700 GMT),
> Reza Habib wrote:
> 
> RH> Foxmail has a built in smtp server so it will relay your mail to the
> RH> host directly, bypassing the isp.  That would be a really cool feature
> RH> for TB to adopt.
> 
> You need to stay connected until the mail is actually delivered. Out
> of the question for me on per-minute dial-up. Same holds true for an
> SMTP server on my machine.

So what is the difference between running an SMTP server on your host, and
connecting to that, verses connecting to your ISPs SMTP?  Both would take
roughly the same amount of time.  Unless you're running the SMTP locally, in
which case when you send mail, you can get it to queue the mail until you next
connect, and when it next connects, fires off the email to the relevant hosts.

-- 
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])


Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Allie C Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thomas F [TF] wrote:
...
TF> You need to stay connected until the mail is actually delivered.
TF> Out of the question for me on per-minute dial-up. Same holds true
TF> for an SMTP server on my machine.

MDaemon here can be configured to use an SMTP host in the sense that
it delivers mail to another SMTP server, usually your ISP SMTP server
instead of doing a direct delivery.

Mercury will also do the same. You can either use the module that does
a direct delivery or the other that delivers via a SmartHost. Mercury
is nice since it's modular and you can choose to run only those
modules you wish to use to reduce overheads.

Does that help you Thomas? :-)

- --
 -=Allie C Martin=-
List Moderator | TB! v1.60m | Windows XP Pro
PGP/GPG Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=2B0717E2
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQE878/HV8nrYCsHF+IRAtJGAJ4uQPP/nCuxd+HQuvkvAHFqhJNPtgCffOZ/
n8xIEnNRADzTERc8AdGPkfM=
=XDdp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Allie C Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thomas F [TF] wrote:
...
TF> You said it. I used myrealbox this for three years when I lived in
TF> Taiwan, and regardless which ISP I was connected to, it always
TF> delivered all my mails from any account. :-)

At what speed?

Slower than your ISP's SMTP server I'd bet.

TF> No need to install an SMTP server on your computer. Leave the
TF> headache of connecting to POP servers all over the world to the
TF> people with the 24/7 connection and the broad bandwidth. ;-)

When I still had my dialup account, I used to use your method but it
was too slow. There was too much of a delay while the SMTP server was
being looked up and then accessed. Sometimes it was plain slow. I just
made MDaemon or Mercury depending on which one I was using, use my
ISP's SMTP server as a SmartHost.

- --
 -=Allie C Martin=-
List Moderator | TB! v1.60m | Windows XP Pro
PGP/GPG Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=2B0717E2
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQE879CAV8nrYCsHF+IRAhhAAJ43Gk8ZbJlVNYPwyJ2l1CJ3Aovs+QCdEV1p
E/hB2r43oD3Q9EHJsZsb6Mc=
=VhTs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Thomas F]

Hello Keith,

On Fri, 24 May 2002 15:06:23 -0400 GMT (25/05/02, 02:06 +0700 GMT),
Keith Rodrigues wrote:

KR> 2) Use a free email service that allows you to send from their
KR> smtp server, with authentication. I use myrealbox
KR> (www.myrealbox.com) for this. Set up an account with them, then
KR> enter their smtp server in the Bat! settings, authenticate using
KR> your username and password, and you can then send from all your
KR> accounts using the same smtp server, regardless of which ISP you
KR> happen to be connected to.

You said it. I used myrealbox this for three years when I lived in
Taiwan, and regardless which ISP I was connected to, it always
delivered all my mails from any account. :-)

No need to install an SMTP server on your computer. Leave the headache
of connecting to POP servers all over the world to the people with the
24/7 connection and the broad bandwidth. ;-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

Dinner Special -- Turkey $2.35; Chicken or Beef $2.25; Children $2.00.

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.60k
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM



Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Thomas F]

Hello Reza,

On Fri, 24 May 2002 15:29:46 -0400 GMT (25/05/02, 02:29 +0700 GMT),
Reza Habib wrote:

RH> Foxmail has a built in smtp server so it will relay your mail to the
RH> host directly, bypassing the isp.  That would be a really cool feature
RH> for TB to adopt.

You need to stay connected until the mail is actually delivered. Out
of the question for me on per-minute dial-up. Same holds true for an
SMTP server on my machine.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.60k
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build  A 
using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM



Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Ray Dawson]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
   Allie C Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> RD> How can I configure TB to 'Send all queued email in all Outboxes
> RD> via the smtp of the ISP which we are connected to'?

> Your best bet would be to use your own SMTP server. There was one
> mentioned in a thread earlier but it's shareware. It will save you a
> lot of headache if you get one. You could go to download.com and see
> if you can find a freeware solution that offers as little system
> overhead as possible.

Thanks for all the responses. I'm downloading a couple of freeware smtp
servers and I'll see if they solve my problem. I really like TB and would
like to be able to use it.

Cheers,

Ray D



Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Reza Habib]

KE> It's a pity that TB doesn't do this. One of the few good things
KE> with Becky! was that it had an option that said something like
KE> "send all outboxes mail through this account" or something to that

Foxmail has a built in smtp server so it will relay your mail to the
host directly, bypassing the isp.  That would be a really cool feature
for TB to adopt.

Reza



*Using The Bat! v1.60k on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2*





Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Keith Rodrigues]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


MW> If not, and if at least one of your ISP accounts *will* allow you to
MW> access their SMTP server while you're logged on to someplace else, set
MW> that server as your SMTP account. Then do as above and place a
MW> checkmark in the Perform SMTP Authentication (RFC 2554) box. Select
MW> "Use specific settings" and enter your login info for that server. Now
MW> all your outgoing mail will be vectored through the ISP account that
MW> allows roaming access.


Having been through these problems myself I have two suggestions,
both of which work for me:

1) Use a local smtp server. I use Postcastserver
(www.postcastserver.com) which is freeware, takes about 2 mins to
install and set up and then works flawlessly.

2) Use a free email service that allows you to send from their
smtp server, with authentication. I use myrealbox
(www.myrealbox.com) for this. Set up an account with them, then
enter their smtp server in the Bat! settings, authenticate using
your username and password, and you can then send from all your
accounts using the same smtp server, regardless of which ISP you
happen to be connected to. The only limitation is they restrict
you to no more than 15 (I think) recipients per message, but this
is not a big deal for most users.



Best regards,
 Keithmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, May 24, 2002, 2:58 PM (ET)
PGP Key at http://www.therods.net/keys/22CB617F.asc
...When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQE87o87OhcblCLLYX8RAsWaAKCbBG0rl4j0mJusDisKoQxaCQ0DTQCfX8BX
/SBmVLgVEGGZguC8wVtE/XM=
=SMpS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Allie C Martin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Krister Ekstrom [KE] wrote:
...
KE> 
KE> It's a pity that TB doesn't do this. One of the few good things with
KE> Becky! was that it had an option that said something like "send all
KE> outboxes mail through this account" or something to that effect. This
KE> meant that you could send all outgoing mail regardless of isp, (or so
KE> i understand it) and it went out through the smtp server of the
KE> account with which i currently worked.
KE> 

And you would have to change the setting each time you connect to a
different ISP. Not an elegant solution either.

KE> Maybe this would be a feature to consider?

Perhaps. See if one of your SMTP servers allows relaying and if so,
configure all your accounts to use that server. If this isn't possible
then I do recommend your own SMTP server if one of your servers
doesn't allow relaying. This is heavy spam times and many ISP's are
securing their servers so they don't become black-listed as relaying
servers.

- --
 -=Allie C Martin=-
List Moderator | TB! v1.60m | Windows XP Pro
PGP/GPG Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=2B0717E2
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQE87oNWV8nrYCsHF+IRArbXAJ91t9eGj3m3RnTuxelQMLea1FyXcACgnOZ7
hyL5Ynkra2Gk0/JNLttx2pE=
=zDoS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re: SMTP servers

[Mark Wieder]

Ray-

You may have some more options here. I've set this up for a client in
the following manner:

Go to Account | Properties | Transport | Send Mail and click the
Authentication button. It's possible that "Use POP before SMTP
authentication" is all you need. This works for most of my situations.

If not, and if at least one of your ISP accounts *will* allow you to
access their SMTP server while you're logged on to someplace else, set
that server as your SMTP account. Then do as above and place a
checkmark in the Perform SMTP Authentication (RFC 2554) box. Select
"Use specific settings" and enter your login info for that server. Now
all your outgoing mail will be vectored through the ISP account that
allows roaming access.


-Mark
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Using The Bat! v1.60h on Windows 2000 5.0 Build
2195 Service Pack 2



Current Ver: 1.60m
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com