On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 12:06 +0400, Vladimir Dronnikov wrote: > > So your MTA INcorrectly discards that EHLO. > no. I think it was my postfix's reject_invalid_hostname option > that > rejected the email address in the EHLO. > > In either case it is MTA, not BB sendmail client, problem, agreed?
I still think the EHLO should be a valid hostname and not an email address. I.E there should be no '@' in the EHLO. > We should probably not even complain. Need to support MAIL > FROM: <> as > others said. > > Yes. It should use it verbatim. <off>Let spammers employ BB sendmail > more actively ;)))</off> > > > > bash so I changed it to SMTPHOST. > > Personally, I would get completely rid of environ here. -H > switch is > > good, > So using a env var was an cheap way to get away from having a > config > file. > > I see. Makes sense. > > > and localhost is the sane fallback IMO. > If you use busybox sendmail, then I'm pretty sure you dont > have a real > MTA listening on localhost port 25. (because if you do have > postfix > running then you use the postfix sendmail and not busybox > sendmail) > > Actually when I developed sendmail I used to have XMail on > localhost :) That is where this default is from. But I would not > object if we had no default host at all. > > So would you rediff and send the result? I started look at it, but it looks like sendmail is designed to only do attatchments and attatchments only. I think I will have to go back to ssmtp which does what I need: stupidly send plain text emails, not attatchments. I don't have time for a busybox sendmail rewrite or fundamental redesign. Sorry. -nc _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
