Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On Thu, Mar 12, 1998 at 01:08:13PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No such thing as a stupid question :) Will Richard Stallman ever work for Microsoft? And the other way round ? Sorry, couldn't resist. Serious ;) Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Remco van de Meent wrote: On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Soenke Lange wrote: : No, I'm just telling them that the mail originated in my isp's domain. : The HELO supposedly tells them who I am. : : Yes! ... HELO/EHLO your.domain.org : then smail (with some switches on) will test if the name and the IP# of the : originating host correspond, else smail will not accept mail from this : host. Other MTA will differ .. but with this method most spams will not find : the way to you... : Still there are lots of misconfigured Mail server, but if more and more : people using smail or some other strong spam protection, they will convert : there configs (imho). Well, OK, you might call them misconfigured. But read this quote from rfc1985: [...] there is no documented stipulation for checking the authenticity of the remote host name, as given in the HELO or EHLO command. [cringe] My sincere apologies for an absolutely STUPID question, But I have absolutely NO idea. Where can I get/read/find/download/whatever the RFC's? [uncringe] Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- For those of you who think life is a joke, just think of the punchline. --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
Hi, Michael == Michael Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Michael Where can I get/read/find/download/whatever the RFC's? package=RFC # comment=Mirror the Internet Requests For Comment # # specify remote host and directory site=ds.internic.net remote_dir=/rfc/ manoj -- When the government attempts to regulate everything, all is lost. Thibaudeau Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Michael Beattie wrote: [ snip ] :My sincere apologies for an absolutely STUPID question, But I have :absolutely NO idea. No such thing as a stupid question :) :Where can I get/read/find/download/whatever the RFC's? Install the package doc-rfc, if you want them locally. They can also be retrieved via ftp (at ftp://ftp.internic.net/rfc) or via http (I use http://rfc.fh-koeln.de/doc/rfc/html/rfc.html). -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 phone: (605) 334-4454 fax: (605) 335-1173 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net PGP Key ID: 0xA33B86E9 - Public key available at keyservers PGP Key fingerprint: CE03 10AF 3281 1858 9D32 C2AB 936D C472 -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On 12 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No such thing as a stupid question :) Will Richard Stallman ever work for Microsoft? Sorry, couldn't resist. Brian -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :On 12 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : : No such thing as a stupid question :) : :Will Richard Stallman ever work for Microsoft? Yikes!! I take it all back :) -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 phone: (605) 334-4454 fax: (605) 335-1173 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net PGP Key ID: 0xA33B86E9 - Public key available at keyservers PGP Key fingerprint: CE03 10AF 3281 1858 9D32 C2AB 936D C472 -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Soenke Lange wrote: : No, I'm just telling them that the mail originated in my isp's domain. : The HELO supposedly tells them who I am. : : Yes! ... HELO/EHLO your.domain.org : then smail (with some switches on) will test if the name and the IP# of the : originating host correspond, else smail will not accept mail from this : host. Other MTA will differ .. but with this method most spams will not find : the way to you... : Still there are lots of misconfigured Mail server, but if more and more : people using smail or some other strong spam protection, they will convert : there configs (imho). Well, OK, you might call them misconfigured. But read this quote from rfc1985: [...] there is no documented stipulation for checking the authenticity of the remote host name, as given in the HELO or EHLO command. I cannot find any pointers in more or less official documents stateing that HELO/EHLO *should* be followed by the same argument as the reverse DNS-lookup tells. Do you agree? So why should Smail block any mail coming from mailhosts not correctly announcing their hostname in the smtp-greeting ? Certainly, a lot of spam could be blocked this way, but on the other hand, lots of 'legal' mail get lost too :( bye, Remco -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Soenke Lange wrote: : Well, OK, you might call them misconfigured. But read this quote from : rfc1985: [...] there is no documented stipulation for checking the : authenticity of the remote host name, as given in the HELO or EHLO command. : : I cannot find any pointers in more or less official documents stateing that : HELO/EHLO *should* be followed by the same argument as the reverse : DNS-lookup tells. Do you agree? : : So why should Smail block any mail coming from mailhosts not correctly : announcing their hostname in the smtp-greeting ? Certainly, a lot of spam : could be blocked this way, but on the other hand, lots of 'legal' mail get : lost too :( : Ok .. your right .. but why cant the mailer announced his legal name ... Maybe not every MTA has options to turn it on; it's possible the `/bin/hostname' (possibly lots of MTA's depend on that name) gives another hostname as the reverse nameserverlookup does. : I'm still searching in the rfc .. there was something like : If you choose to not use the canonical name in HELO, you cannot insist that : mailers accept mails from you ... as I remember ... maybe it read something : different, but thats whats in the moment came in my mind. I had a look in the RFC database, but couldn't find anything. If you can find it, I'd like to hear :) : don't take me wrong ... : this feature is off by default in debian version of smail : Soenke OK, that's the way it should be IMHO. : ps as for debian .. smail should be as open as possible ... : but that's not the way the upstream version of smail will go :-( Maybe the authors of Smail can be convinced not to do thing not common on the Internet, which even might violate the RFC's? bye, Remco -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
Hallo [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you use a smarthost, then the mail that they send for you is not rejected, as their HELO [domain] is valid, it can be found on the DNS. whereas mine is not. is this right? In my limited experience, mail servers always accept HELO from non-existent domains. I find this surprising. I gather that when visible_name is set to your ISP, i.e. win.bright.net, or in my case es.co.nz , then you appear as if you are masquerading as your ISP. No, I'm just telling them that the mail originated in my isp's domain. The HELO supposedly tells them who I am. Yes! ... HELO/EHLO your.domain.org then smail (with some switches on) will test if the name and the IP# of the originating host correspond, else smail will not accept mail from this host. Other MTA will differ .. but with this method most spams will not find the way to you... Still there are lots of misconfigured Mail server, but if more and more people using smail or some other strong spam protection, they will convert there configs (imho). Coming back to smail and config.. /etc/smail/config hostname= must contain as first entry your legal hostname, or your smarthost must accept it (thats the only way for dynamical ip#) . regards Soenke -- Soenke Lange -- Microsoft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !! -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On 4 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: I have one [a valid hostname]. It just makes things worse, since it isn't in my isp's domain. Michael Beattie writes: I gather you mean a valid domain as in being in the DNS? Yes. Okay... True, but I meant in the situation that with visible_name set to my ISP, I would not have to use a smarthost for spam-rejecting sites,... smart_host has to do with outgoing mail. So far as I know it has no relevance to spam. I think it does... in a broader sense.. If you use a smarthost, then the mail that they send for you is not rejected, as their HELO [domain] is valid, it can be found on the DNS. whereas mine is not. is this right? ...as it would appear you are masquerading as your ISP, smart_host just hands off delivery to the smarthost so that their well-connected machine can do the address lookup, delivery, retries, etc. The message still goes out with your address. Yes, that I understand, but what I was trying to say is that I gather that when visible_name is set to your ISP, i.e. win.bright.net, or in my case es.co.nz , then you appear as if you are masquerading as your ISP. Am I right saying that? (this is not using a smarthost) ..And using a smarthost, visible_name could be set to your machine's name. The reverse. If you don't use smart_host you will be delivering every message directly to the addressed host. If your address resolves they will accept the message. Many will accept it even if the address doesn't resolve. When you use smart_host, though, you are asking your ISP to relay for you. This causes them to suspect that you might be a spammer, so they may refuse the message unless the MAIL FROM: address is within their domain. okay, this I did not know. I guess I would have to try my ISP.. the MAIL FROM: line is your email address right? so if mine is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , which it is, my ISP should send it out without a problem right? Another question, is visible_name the name used in the HELO [domain] line? or is it used for more or less than that? Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- God's last name is not damn. --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
Michael Beattie writes: If you use a smarthost, then the mail that they send for you is not rejected, as their HELO [domain] is valid, it can be found on the DNS. whereas mine is not. is this right? In my limited experience, mail servers always accept HELO from non-existent domains. I find this surprising. I gather that when visible_name is set to your ISP, i.e. win.bright.net, or in my case es.co.nz , then you appear as if you are masquerading as your ISP. No, I'm just telling them that the mail originated in my isp's domain. The HELO supposedly tells them who I am. this is not using a smarthost That's irrelevant. the MAIL FROM: line is your email address right? No. With smail, it's [EMAIL PROTECTED] if visible name is set, else it is [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, it is only used for returning bounces. Another question, is visible_name the name used in the HELO [domain] line? hostname is used on the HELO line. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- E-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
On 3 Mar 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Beattie writes: What I would like to know is what are peoples opinion's on their own configurations, and what the pro's and con's are. One I can think of; Daniel's rewriting of /etc/smail/config every login,... I may try that. ... versus having visible_name set to your ISP's domain,... That is what I am doing now, but I don't like it. It would be fine if I could get smail to use my complete popmail name, though. Can sendmail do that? ...to have a valid hostname. I have one. It just makes things worse, since it isn't in my isp's domain. I gather you mean a valid domain as in being in the DNS?? What would people suggest in my situation, where my ISP's SMTP server does not mind invalid hostnames? That may change. hehe not my ISP, they are so slack that billing sometimes get completly screwed up... should I just use it as a smarthost, and forget about visible_name? Those are unrelated. True, but I meant in the situation that with visible_name set to my ISP, I would not have to use a smarthost for spam-rejecting sites, as it would appear you are masquerading as your ISP, which has a valid hostname on the DNS... And using a smarthost, visible_name could be set to your machine's name. I have not understood how to set up a smarthost, how is this done? In /etc/routers I have: smart_host: driver=smarthost, transport=smtp; path=bucky.win.bright.net Thanks I'll give that a go... Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- DOS never says EXCELLENT command or filename... --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
I wrote: I have one [a valid hostname]. It just makes things worse, since it isn't in my isp's domain. Michael Beattie writes: I gather you mean a valid domain as in being in the DNS? Yes. hehe not my ISP, they are so slack that billing sometimes get completly screwed up... BrightNet is pretty slack too: they can't even get their clocks set right. Nonetheless, they upgraded sendmail. True, but I meant in the situation that with visible_name set to my ISP, I would not have to use a smarthost for spam-rejecting sites,... smart_host has to do with outgoing mail. So far as I know it has no relevance to spam. ...as it would appear you are masquerading as your ISP, smart_host just hands off delivery to the smarthost so that their well-connected machine can do the address lookup, delivery, retries, etc. The message still goes out with your address. ..And using a smarthost, visible_name could be set to your machine's name. The reverse. If you don't use smart_host you will be delivering every message directly to the addressed host. If your address resolves they will accept the message. Many will accept it even if the address doesn't resolve. When you use smart_host, though, you are asking your ISP to relay for you. This causes them to suspect that you might be a spammer, so they may refuse the message unless the MAIL FROM: address is within their domain. I can get mail delivered to addresses in win.bright.net with a MAIL FROM: of [EMAIL PROTECTED], but if the destination is outside their domain it has to say [EMAIL PROTECTED]. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
smail (again..... sheesh..)
Okay... over the last 2-3 months I have been subscribed to this list, I
have noticed a predominant percentage of messages are about smail, and
it's configuration.
Obviously, I have a question. What I would like to know is what are
peoples opinion's on their own configurations, and what the pro's and
con's are. One I can think of; Daniel's rewriting of /etc/smail/config
every login, versus having visible_name set to your ISP's domain, to
have a valid hostname. (All of these questions relate to dial-up
configurations)
Another question is, what is better: using a smarthost for all mail, or
for mail that fails? opinions here
What would people suggest in my situation, where my ISP's SMTP server
does not mind invalid hostnames? should I just use it as a smarthost,
and forget about visible_name? I have not understood how to set up a
smarthost, how is this done?
I have been contemplating this topic and a decent solution for a while,
and have simply not been able to decide what to do
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
---
WinErr: 00F User error - Not our fault. Is Not! Is Not!
---
Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out!
The following is my complete smail configuration, for whoever wants to
read it and make suggestions. enhancements.. etc..
/etc/smail/config -
visible_name=omnic.rumpus.net LONG story
-domains
hostnames=omnic.rumpus.net:localhost to support fetchmail
max_load_ave=5
smtp_accept_max=20
smtp_accept_queue=10
rfc1413_query_timeout=15
require_configs
-second_config_file
-qualify_file
-retry_file
copying_file=/usr/doc/smail/copyright
max_message_size=10M
received_field=Received: \
${if def:sender_host\
{from $sender_host ${if def:sender_host_addr ([$sender_host_addr]) }}\
{${if def:sender_host_addr:from [$sender_host_addr] }}}\
by $primary_name\n\t\
${if def:sender_proto: with $sender_proto }\
${if def:ident_sender:(ident $ident_sender using $ident_method) }\
id $message_id\n\t\
(Debian $version_string); $spool_date
end /etc/smail/config -
/etc/smail/routers
inet_addrs:
driver=gethostbyaddr, transport=smtp;
check_for_local, fail_if_error
inet_hosts:
driver=bind, transport=smtp;
defer_no_connect, -local_mx_okay, defnames,
gateways=uu.net:uucp:+:cunyvm.cuny.edu:bitnet
end /etc/smail/routers
/etc/smail/transports -
#local: driver=appendfile, from, local, inet, return_path, unix_from_hack;
# append_as_user, check_user, file=/var/spool/mail/${lc:strip:user},
# group=mail, mode=0660, notify_comsat, suffix=\n,
local: return_path, local, from, driver=pipe; user=root,
cmd=/usr/bin/procmail -d $($user$)
smtp: driver=tcpsmtp, max_addrs=100, -max_chars, inet,
remove_header=From,
insert_header=From: ${lookup:from:lsearch{maps/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
($from:$fullname)}},
remove_header=Message-ID,
insert_header=Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
remove_header=Sender,
insert_header=Sender: ${lookup:from:lsearch{maps/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
($from:$fullname)}};
use_bind, defer_no_connect, -local_mx_okay, defnames
uux:driver=pipe, uucp, from, max_addrs=5, max_chars=200;
cmd=/usr/bin/uux - -r $host!rmail $(($user)$),
pipe_as_sender, log_output
pipe: driver=pipe, from, local, inet, return_path, unix_from_hack;
cmd=/bin/sh -c $user, -ignore_status, -ignore_write_errors,
log_output, parent_env, pipe_as_user, umask=0077
file: driver=appendfile, from, local, return_path, unix_from_hack;
append_as_user, file=$user, expand_user,
mode=0660, suffix=\n
end /etc/smail/transports -
/etc/smail/directors --
aliases:
driver=aliasfile, owner=postmaster, sender_okay;
file=/etc/aliases, proto=lsearch,
modemask=002, owners=root:mail:daemon, owngroups=root:mail:daemon
dotforward:
driver=forwardfile, owner=postmaster, nobody, sender_okay;
file=~/.forward,
checkowner, modemask=022, owners=root,
unsecure=0-99:~ftp:~uucp:/tmp:/var/tmp,
user:
driver=user;
transport=local
real_user:
driver=user;
transport=local,
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Beattie) writes: Okay... over the last 2-3 months I have been subscribed to this list, I have noticed a predominant percentage of messages are about smail, and it's configuration. Obviously, I have a question. What I would like to know is what are peoples opinion's on their own configurations, and what the pro's and con's are. One I can think of; Daniel's rewriting of /etc/smail/config every login, versus having visible_name set to your ISP's domain, to have a valid hostname. (All of these questions relate to dial-up configurations) Well, I can give you some advantages/disadvantages of what I do. The advantage is that Sender: addresses are always correct in some sense, and the envelope From: address seems to be written correctly as well. The disadvantage is that re-running smailconfig breaks this setup (or rather, anything you get by running smailconfig is wiped out at the next ip-up). It's probably the wrong thing to do for someone whose box only ever has one user who's sending mail. Another question is, what is better: using a smarthost for all mail, or for mail that fails? opinions here Well... any mail composed while offline is just going to end up going through the smarthost anyway, so why not use a smarthost all the time? The only time I'd consider not using a smarthost for all mail (for a dialup ppp box) would be when one's smarthost was notoriously slow. What would people suggest in my situation, where my ISP's SMTP server does not mind invalid hostnames? should I just use it as a smarthost, and forget about visible_name? I have not understood how to set up a smarthost, how is this done? Yep. Setting this situation up is easy - in smailconfig choose the internet site option, give your ISP's name as your visible name, and enter their smtp server as your smarthost. Or, if you insist on editing your /etc/smail/routers file directly, replace all routes with this one: smart_host: driver=smarthost, transport=smtp; path=your.isps.smtp.server -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: smail (again..... sheesh..)
Michael Beattie writes: What I would like to know is what are peoples opinion's on their own configurations, and what the pro's and con's are. One I can think of; Daniel's rewriting of /etc/smail/config every login,... I may try that. ... versus having visible_name set to your ISP's domain,... That is what I am doing now, but I don't like it. It would be fine if I could get smail to use my complete popmail name, though. Can sendmail do that? ...to have a valid hostname. I have one. It just makes things worse, since it isn't in my isp's domain. What would people suggest in my situation, where my ISP's SMTP server does not mind invalid hostnames? That may change. should I just use it as a smarthost, and forget about visible_name? Those are unrelated. I have not understood how to set up a smarthost, how is this done? In /etc/routers I have: smart_host: driver=smarthost, transport=smtp; path=bucky.win.bright.net -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
