> >Talking directly to AT&T's SMTP servers is a tad inconvenient > >now that they require SSL. But I'll try later. > > I think we have SSL support in send now, don't we? Even the broke-ass > SSL required by AT&T? :-) Okay, I don't think we have -initialtls > in 1.5.
Right. I was thinking of telnet'ing directly to the SMTP server. Instead, I just added printouts to verify that just the headers are being sent, with no CRLF inserted to make it look like they're the body. > This suggests to me that it's a bug with some SMTP servers that don't > handle a blank body properly. I double-checled RFC5322; a blank body > is ok. Agreed. I did notice something else wierd, the SMTP server sometimes complains: post: posting failed; [BHST] premature end-of-file on socket send: message not delivered to anyone I've never seen before, but then I usually don't send empty messages. And I've only seen that today with empty messages. But it's inconsistent: a re-try usually, but not always, succeeds. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
