I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
(after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I tried to
sabotage an e-mail by inserting a sender that is un-RFC822, and there
were errors sent
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:10AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
(after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I tried to
sabotage an e-mail
Angus March:
I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
(after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I tried to
sabotage an e-mail by inserting a sender that is un-RFC822, and there
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:10AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
(after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:54:43AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
If sendmail(1) is unable to en-queue a message, it reports an error.
In all other cases (message en-queued), error reporting is asynchronous.
Well, that's the problem here. There was no bounce, obviously, since
the sender was
---BeginMessage---
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:10AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
(after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
diligently checks the status value
Angus March:
If sendmail(1) is unable to en-queue a message, it reports an error.
In all other cases (message en-queued), error reporting is asynchronous.
Well, that's the problem here. There was no bounce, obviously, since
the sender was bogus, and sendmail's return value (as taken
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:22:47PM -0500, Angus March wrote:
And finally, what was sent to the standard error:
sendmail: warning: -f option specified malformed sender: angus uducat.com
sendmail: fatal: No recipient addresses found in message header
This exits with EX_USAGE. Either you are not
Angus March put forth on 11/10/2009 12:22 PM:
The Postfix I'm using is the rpm that comes with SLE 10:
postfix-2.2.9-10.23. If what you say is correct, then this sendmail
operation is buggy.
Probably unrelated to your current issue, but you should consider
upgrading your Postfix to at least
Wietse Venema wrote:
Angus March:
No, that was a WARNING.
warning: -f option specified malformed sender
If there is an ERROR, the Postfix sendmail command will NOT enqueue
the message, and it will return a non-zero exit status code as
defined in /usr/include/sysexits.h.
Angus March:
If there is an ERROR, the Postfix sendmail command will NOT enqueue
the message, and it will return a non-zero exit status code as
defined in /usr/include/sysexits.h.
sendmail: fatal: No recipient addresses found in message header
That is an ERROR. The Postfix sendmail
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:22:47PM -0500, Angus March wrote:
And finally, what was sent to the standard error:
sendmail: warning: -f option specified malformed sender: angus uducat.com
sendmail: fatal: No recipient addresses found in message header
This
12 matches
Mail list logo
