Re: New Smail, how to use offline?
Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 23 Jan 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote: So despite turning of this feature, smail *does* check the DNS. I'll have another look at this and will probably file a bugreport. Yes, please do. Do so on my behalf as well. I'm behind a firewall and without external DNS, so smail won't accept anymore what fetchmail gets from the pophost. I did add some lines to bug #17371 as you did. I fixed this by downgrading to an older version of smail which I still happened to have. Maybe some wizardry with procmail as mda would have worked. Or moving to sendmail (at least you can tell that one to not do lookups.) I added 'mda formail -s procmail' to get around this, circumventing the problem. I'm afraid the maintainer can't do very much about this either. Still, I find this a major bug. It will suddenly break many other people's setup when they upgrade to hamm. If this cannot be resolved before hamm gets released, it will be a choice between fully connected smail sites abused by spammers or poorly connected sites unable to receive mail. Hopefully this is a compiletime option. Better turn this off completely then leaving it that way. Or maybe the upstream authors have a fix... BTW: which package has libpcap ? This one is missing in tcpdump's Depends: Package: tcpdump Depends: libc6, libpcap0 (= 0.4-1) Filename: dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/net/tcpdump_3.4a4-1.deb Ah, yes. I didn't realise, that tcpdump was unconfigured on my system. Ciao, Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline?
On Thu, Jan 22, 1998 at 11:12:07PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: Neilen Marais [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Basically, it seems to do a reverse lookup on the system connecting to it, but I think I sorted that out by putting allow_broken_hello, or something similar for localhost. This should only be neccessary if the mailreader does a broken HELO. Pine is one of these and if you had to do this as well, then XFMail is another one. Also, it breaks fetchmail if your FQDN doesn't have any dots in it. Adam Klein -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline?
Martin Bialasinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Other thing is that it seems to do a DNS lookup on every from address, and since my from contains [EMAIL PROTECTED], this can't be done when I'm offline. So if I can get this fixed I think I can use the newest smail again... Any suggestions? I don't have any problems with it. Did you complete smailconfig during upgrade? In /etc/smail/config there should also be the lines: -smtp_hello_verify -smtp_hello_verify_literal With these you disable the hostname verification. I had another thought about this and I believe you are right. I noticed that fetchmail got slow, but I didn't associate this with smail. But xconsole shows, that during fetchmail my local caching only nameserver learns hostnames. So despite turning of this feature, smail *does* check the DNS. I'll have another look at this and will probably file a bugreport. BTW: which package has libpcap ? This one is missing in tcpdump's Depends: line. Another bugreport I guess. Ciao, Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline?
On 23 Jan 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote: So despite turning of this feature, smail *does* check the DNS. I'll have another look at this and will probably file a bugreport. BTW: which package has libpcap ? This one is missing in tcpdump's Depends: line. Another bugreport I guess. I don't recall if you said it's a dial-up connection, but I guess it is... Here's a related message I sent to debian-devel regarding this issue. I really hope this helps. Please note that I was attempting to make a generic dial-up configuration for smail. I'm still thinking about this; right now I'm thinking about giving my computer at home at domain (localnet), so I end up with [EMAIL PROTECTED] In that way, I can make pine happy, I can make smail to recognize that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is local, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] is remote (the problem with telling smail that the visible hostname is the ISP's domain, is that you can't send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] WITHOUT fine tunning the configuration first)... but I'm just thinking about it... Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:47:55 -0600 (CST) From: Marcelo E. Magallón [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Developers debian-devel@lists.debian.org Cc: Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ardo van Rangelrooij [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: smail (3.2.0.100-2) and ppp issues Resent-Date: 19 Jan 1998 00:37:57 - Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: Just noticed this thread on debian-devel. Excuse me for jumping in here late --- but it all works for me!! Thanks Dirk, at least for me, this solves the problem. Just for the record, here's what I ended up with: I run smailconfig --force, and select internet site, smarthost (sending everything not local to the smarthost). Notice in /etc/smail/config I have hostnames=jacinta # jacinta my computer's hostname. I don't include my # ISP here. Nasty things happen when I do that, for # example, I can't send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], # because smail wants to deal with the mail itself. smtp_hello_broken_allow=localnet # this isn't requiered in fact but I # noticed several problems without it # and I left it there .fetchmailrc includes mda formail -s procmail per Dirk's suggestion. This handles the local delivery. The man page for fetchmail warns about using mda because error checking is lost. I have processed my mail using procmail for years and it does a pretty good job at error handling. I wonder if I can still trust procmail under this configuration. I use pine. I specify sendmail-path=/usr/sbin/sendmail -t -oem -oi and smtp-server empty, in order to force smail to accept the mail. If I don't do this, smail will try to check that efis.ucr.ac.cr (in my email address) is valid when pine says MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Bonus: I no longer run smail, neither as a daemon or standalone. I get what I want: a mail queue that's flushed using runq. At the end, this is better than my previous setup. I don't get smail in the way (what I'm fetching is mail that has ALREADY been filtered for spam, sorted in mailboxes, and things like that) and it potentially uses less memory (smail isn't running, not even for short periods of time) Is this setup ok? I mean, is this recommendable as a generic dial-up setup? It's pretty close to current option 1 in smailconfig, but only the hostname is listed in hostnames. Marcelo -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline? *BIG WARNING*
Martin Bialasinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I noticed that fetchmail got slow, but I didn't associate this with smail. But xconsole shows, that during fetchmail my local caching only nameserver learns hostnames. So despite turning of this feature, smail *does* check the DNS. I'll have another look at this and will probably file a bugreport. I just had another fetchmailrun, this time using the -v option: reading message 2 of 3 (3647 bytes) fetchmail: forwarding to SMTP port on localhost fetchmail: SMTP MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIZE=3647 fetchmail: SMTP 250 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Sender Okay here it checks the sender despite of turning this feature of fetchmail: SMTP RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] fetchmail: SMTP 250 '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' martinb@(nodomain) Recipient Okay. fetchmail: SMTP DATA fetchmail: SMTP 354 Enter mail, end with . on a line by itself #*.***fetchmail: SMTP. (EOM) fetchmail: SMTP 250 Mail accepted flushed fetchmail: POP3 DELE 2 fetchmail: POP3 +OK Message 2 has been deleted. fetchmail: POP3 RETR 3 fetchmail: POP3 +OK 2564 octets reading message 3 of 3 (2564 bytes) fetchmail: forwarding to SMTP port on localhost fetchmail: SMTP MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BODY=7BIT SIZE=2564 fetchmail: SMTP 550 '[EMAIL PROTECTED]BODY=7BIT SIZE=2564' sender address target 'pcks.com' is not a valid e-mail domain. fetchmail: SMTP error: 550 '[EMAIL PROTECTED]BODY=7BIT SIZE=2564' sender address target 'pcks.com' is not a valid e-mail domain. flushed now it checks the emailaddress and rejects this one. AND IT THROWS THE MAIL AWAY ! (Sorry for shouting). OK, this is a feature, but I didn't activate it. fetchmail: POP3 DELE 3 fetchmail: POP3 +OK Message 3 has been deleted. fetchmail doesn't care, what smail did with the mail (correct behaviour) and deletes it from my ISP. *AARRGH* Time to revert to smail from bo and do further tests on a spare machine. Ciao, Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline? *BIG WARNING*
On 23 Jan 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote: Time to revert to smail from bo and do further tests on a spare machine. This happened to me, too. I lost mail from mailing lists, so for me it wasn't that bad. Anyway, I (almost) removed smail from the equation. I have: . smail: queues mail and delivers it when the connection is up. Call it MTA from home to ISP. . fetchmail: this acts as MTA from ISP to home and... . procmail: this is my MDA. This puts mail where it belongs; no smail here Additionaly, I use pine. It's configured to PIPE mail using sendmail (that is, smail) instead of contacting localhost on port 25. In this way, it doesn't check FROM and TO addresses. Marcelo -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline?
Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 23 Jan 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote: So despite turning of this feature, smail *does* check the DNS. I'll have another look at this and will probably file a bugreport. I don't recall if you said it's a dial-up connection, but I guess it is... Yes, it is. Dynamic IP assignment. Here's a related message I sent to debian-devel regarding this issue. I really hope this helps. Unfortuantly it does not. I don't have problems with sending mails, as I used a private domainname right from the beginning. This issue is about smail checking the Sender: header of incoming mail. My local setup is O.K., so mails I send get through. But incoming mail, delivered by fetchmail has a problem. Check this: 01/23/1998 18:22:17: [m0xvmo3-0003jkC] remote MAIL FROM: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]SIZE=2423' target 'walker0-187.reshall.ou.edu' is not a valid domain (no MX record); by haitech.internet-treff.de [127.0.0.1]. Smail drops such mail. I could say what the %$§, it is *their* broken setup, not mine, but in regard of smail being debian's prefered MTA and debian 2.0 at the horizon, I believe smail shouldn't check the sender by default. DNS lookup also slows down the process of mailretrieving using fetchmail. To say this straight: You'll *loose* *mail*, if you retrieve it with fetchmail+smail. But mda formail -s procmail is a good tip, so I can keep this smail version for testing and still reliably retrieve mails. Ciao, Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline?
On 23 Jan 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote: So despite turning of this feature, smail *does* check the DNS. I'll have another look at this and will probably file a bugreport. Yes, please do. Do so on my behalf as well. I'm behind a firewall and without external DNS, so smail won't accept anymore what fetchmail gets from the pophost. I fixed this by downgrading to an older version of smail which I still happened to have. Maybe some wizardry with procmail as mda would have worked. Or moving to sendmail (at least you can tell that one to not do lookups.) I'm afraid the maintainer can't do very much about this either. Still, I find this a major bug. It will suddenly break many other people's setup when they upgrade to hamm. If this cannot be resolved before hamm gets released, it will be a choice between fully connected smail sites abused by spammers or poorly connected sites unable to receive mail. BTW: which package has libpcap ? This one is missing in tcpdump's Depends: line. Another bugreport I guess. This is from my /var/lib/dpkg/available (I'm running hamm): Package: libpcap0 Filename: dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/libs/libpcap0_0.4a2-2.deb Package: tcpdump Depends: libc6, libpcap0 (= 0.4-1) Filename: dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/net/tcpdump_3.4a4-1.deb Cheers, Joost -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
New Smail, how to use offline?
Hi The newest smail seems to have a number of features well suited to fighting spam, but most of these things cause problems when trying to run your typical offline/fetchmail with pop config, so I have reverted to using the smail from my trusty bo CD till I can find out how to configure the newest to my needs.. Basically, it seems to do a reverse lookup on the system connecting to it, but I think I sorted that out by putting allow_broken_hello, or something similar for localhost. Other thing is that it seems to do a DNS lookup on every from address, and since my from contains [EMAIL PROTECTED], this can't be done when I'm offline. So if I can get this fixed I think I can use the newest smail again... Any suggestions? Thanks in advance Neilen -- E-Mail: Neilen Marais [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 22-Jan-98 Time: 20:51:00 This message was sent by XFMail -- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: New Smail, how to use offline?
Neilen Marais [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Basically, it seems to do a reverse lookup on the system connecting to it, but I think I sorted that out by putting allow_broken_hello, or something similar for localhost. This should only be neccessary if the mailreader does a broken HELO. Pine is one of these and if you had to do this as well, then XFMail is another one. Other thing is that it seems to do a DNS lookup on every from address, and since my from contains [EMAIL PROTECTED], this can't be done when I'm offline. So if I can get this fixed I think I can use the newest smail again... Any suggestions? I don't have any problems with it. Did you complete smailconfig during upgrade? In /etc/smail/config there should also be the lines: -smtp_hello_verify -smtp_hello_verify_literal With these you disable the hostname verification. I just had one problem with the upgrade: I told dpkg to leave my /etc/aliases alone (and it did). Then post.inst called smailconfig and I went through it. But smailconfig wiped my aliases file (!). I con confirm this for 3 installations of the package on 2 different machines, so be carefull. I already filed a bug report about this. After this experience I added a cronjob to backup my aliases like this is already done for /etc/passwd and /etc/group (added this as a wish to the bugreport as well). Ciao, Martin -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
