Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:34:56PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> > i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
> > only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
> > create local Mailbox instantly too.
> > > qmail-start ./Maildi
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:34:56PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
> only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
> create local Mailbox instantly too.
> > qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
I s
* Marcio Sa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010122 18:09]:
> Timo Geusch wrote:
>
> > The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
> > the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
> > as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
> >
> > OTOH
l Message-
> From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 January 2001 17:10
> To: Timo Geusch
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFC822
>
> Timo Geusch wrote:
>
> > The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line
> wi
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 02:52:15PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because second
> one looks like
> a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and the
> only information
> related with this situati
oblem.
Regards,
Timo
-Original Message-
From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 17:10
To: Timo Geusch
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFC822
Timo Geusch wrote:
> The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line
without
> the colon,
Timo Geusch wrote:
> The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
> the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
> as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
>
> OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
>
The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
Maildir/new. Care to post your
Louis Theran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you make defaultdomain the empty string, then you get:
> box@host -> box@host.
> and if the host's name really is ``host.'', there's no problem.
Well, yes, there is, because box@host. is an invalid mailbox per RFC 822.
Trailing periods are not pe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Allbery) writes:
> Bruno Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > He probably means a domain with no dots. For example: discuss@opennic
>
> That's a dumb idea.
>
> Anyway, qmail's behavior for such domain names is documented in
> qmail-header(5):
>
> All host names
Brian writes:
> Maybe I can simplify the issue here by asking a question:
>
> Is it the consensus here that the following is RFC822 compliant:
Why do you think RFC822 has anything to do with it?
> defaultdomain: empty
> QMAILDEFAULTDOMAIN=""
>
> qmail-inject converts you@somewhere -> yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> BTW, this isn't flamebait (comment for Felix). I'm just trying to
> figure out why qmail is unable to correctly resolve an address in the
> format
>
> someone@domain
What are you defining as correct, and why?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnels
Bruno Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He probably means a domain with no dots. For example: discuss@opennic
That's a dumb idea.
Anyway, qmail's behavior for such domain names is documented in
qmail-header(5):
All host names should be fully qualified. qmail-inject appends the
def
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 08:05:20AM -0800,
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you mean "someone@domain" as the complete address with no dots on the
> right-hand side? Bear in mind that RFC 822 contains *no* address
> canonicalization provisions; if you're expecting your local domain
briank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the response. I'm still a bit confused, though: If I
> attempt to inject a piece of mail with a valid, RFC822-compliant
> address, and qmail rejects it due to some sort of internal formatting it
> does, does this not defeat the purpose of having a
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 06:32:17PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Lovely attitude you got there, friend. Does your attitude pretty
> much signify the attitude of the entire group here, or is it just you
> with the superiority complex?
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Go and learn how to prope
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 06:36:02PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> BTW, this isn't flamebait (comment for Felix). I'm just trying to
> figure out why qmail is unable to correctly resolve an address in the
> format
> someone@domain
Have you ever tried to send mail to postmaster@com?
I have a va
Russ--
Thanks for the response. I'm still a bit confused, though: If I
attempt to inject a piece of mail with a valid, RFC822-compliant
address, and qmail rejects it due to some sort of internal formatting
it does, does this not defeat the purpose of having an Internet
standard to begin with?
Lovely attitude you got there, friend. Does your attitude pretty
much signify the attitude of the entire group here, or is it just you
with the superiority complex?
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 06:25:11PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > So you'r
briank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you're basically saying that qmail can pretty much mung up an e-mail
> address any way it likes because it's...qmail!
No, qmail-inject can munge up an e-mail address any way it likes because
the behavior of the program your MUA runs is not govered by any s
Thus said [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:54:48 CST:
> So you're basically saying that qmail can pretty much mung up an
> e-mail address any way it likes because it's...qmail!
No, he is not saying that at all. qmail out-of-the-box will not munge
anything. What that user was asking
So you're basically saying that qmail can pretty much mung up an
e-mail address any way it likes because it's...qmail!
That seems to sum up the attitude around here: Qmail is great, don't
dare question its merits.
Sorry to obscure the issue with facts. I can see why qmail is still
stuck at 1
> Maybe I can simplify the issue here by asking a question:
> Is it the consensus here that the following is RFC822 compliant:
> defaultdomain: empty
> QMAILDEFAULTDOMAIN=""
> qmail-inject converts you@somewhere -> you@somewhere. (note the period)
What kind of experts are you people, anyway?
Maybe I can simplify the issue here by asking a question:
Is it the consensus here that the following is RFC822 compliant:
defaultdomain: empty
QMAILDEFAULTDOMAIN=""
qmail-inject converts you@somewhere -> you@somewhere. (note the period)
--Brian
Also, if QMAILDEFAULTDOMAIN isn't set, then this is the result (with an
empty defaultdomain):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also explained in the original post...
--Brian
Markus Stumpf wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:59:33PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If this
> > is, in fact, a bug, I've
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:59:33PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If this
> is, in fact, a bug, I've got a patch which will prevent qmail-inject
> from appending a "." when QMAILDEFAULTDOMAIN is set to "". But I wanted
> to make sure this was truly a problem in need of a fix.
Why should anyon
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 10:58:43AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > Doing this manually works. But letting mutt do it directly to qmail-inject
> > fails by queuing three different addresses, "address@,
> > with@ and spaces"@x42.com.
>
> The reason it works when you run qmail-inject from the
> OK. It's just that I can't really find the guilty part.
> When using a perl wrapper with mutt, mutt sends
>
> -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "address with spaces"@x42.com
>
> on the command line to the mail queuer.
>
> Doing this manually works. But letting mutt do it directly to qmail-inject
> f
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 09:59:51AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > As I see it, qmail-inject does not like quoted-strings in local-part on the
> > command line.
>
> No, it treats the addresses on the command lines as raw addresses. If there
> are quotes in the raw address (and almost certainly
> As I see it, qmail-inject does not like quoted-strings in local-part on the
> command line.
No, it treats the addresses on the command lines as raw addresses. If there
are quotes in the raw address (and almost certainly there won't be), then
they would be included on the command line.
The add
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 04:24:43PM +0200, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 04:16:31PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> >
> > And here's the bounce I got.
> >
> But thats no fault on injecting the mail. This seems to be a problem on your
> side, at fluff.x42.com.
>
No.
If you talk SMTP
31 matches
Mail list logo
