Re: why use sendmail?
dman wrote: Will KMail automatically try at ever-increasing intervals for a given amount of time and then genarate a bounce that _will_ be delivered to the sender if the mesasge can't be delivered? For the first point, if you quit KMail it certainly can't. I imagine it requires you to press a button again to have it retry. From the perspective of someone with a standalone box and dialup connection I'm not sure that's desirable behaviour, but yes if interval mail checking and dial on demand were enabled I'm sure that would be possible. I'm not suggesting that people with permanent connections and/or a network dump exim and start configuring kmail on every box they own to do smtp. That would be ludicrous. See my reply to the person who started this thread. For the second point, it is impossible. After all, the failure occured because kmail can't get to the server that is supposed to handle delivery. If it generates a bounce, then it would have to transfer it to the server it can't get to for delivery. For a dial up connection its your ISP's mailservers that handle the bouncing. All kmail is doing is placing returned undeliverable messages back in the users outbox so that another attempt can be made to deliver them. I also question how complete and robust any MUA's SMTP implementation is. An MTA isn't a trivial project. Short of examining the code (not that I'm capable of it ;-) ) that can only ever be a subjective opinion. I'm not discrediting KMail in any way, I just don't believe that any MUA should try and handle SMTP. For the case of a standalone box without permanent connection I have to disagree. Keep it simple. -- Simon Hepburn. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
dman wrote: On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:00:36PM +0100, Simon Hepburn wrote: | John Lord wrote: | Hi folks, | | | Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction | with KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? | | It depends on you situation | | If you are running a standalone box with dialup connection and you get | your mail through your ISP, I would just let KMail handle remote mail for | you. Put simply, it's a lot less hassle. Just configure exim to do local | mail delivery for the benefit of cron and friends. This will save you a | lot of time and confusion. FYI it is almost trivially easy to set exim up with smarthost delivery. It becomes trivial when you are given the answers to the questions about relaying. I posted step-by-step instructions on this list a few months ago. If you want I can dig up the URL (I'm in console now and the bookmark is in galeon). -D I'm sure that the person who started this thread would be interested in that URL. However the fact that you had to post step by step instructions does tend to undermine your argument that it is trivially easy. It might be to you or me, but this list is littered with queries from new users struggling to configure mta's. I can't recall ever having seen someone stuck trying to configure kmail. -- Simon Hepburn. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
Simon Hepburn writes: From the perspective of someone with a standalone box and dialup connection I'm not sure that's desirable behaviour,... I find it highly desireable. ...but yes if interval mail checking and dial on demand were enabled I'm sure that would be possible. It is. Of course, retries are rare since I have to use my ISP's smarthost. For the case of a standalone box without permanent connection I have to disagree. Keep it simple. Ther's nothing simple in packing distinct and easily seperable functions into a single program. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
* Simon Hepburn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020401 00:20]: dman wrote: Will KMail automatically try at ever-increasing intervals for a given amount of time and then genarate a bounce that _will_ be delivered to the sender if the mesasge can't be delivered? For the first point, if Well, these also aren't strict requirements of every MTA. For the second point, it is impossible. After all, the failure occured because kmail can't get to the server that is supposed to handle delivery. If it generates a bounce, then it would have to transfer it to the server it can't get to for delivery. For a dial up connection its your ISP's mailservers that handle the bouncing. All kmail is doing is placing returned undeliverable messages back in the users outbox so that another attempt can be made to deliver them. Right, this gets treated at a higher application level of sorts. It's the same type of behavior as if the message couldn't be injected into the local MTAs queue for some reason; the MUA just hangs on to the message telling the user it couldn't be sent. I'm not discrediting KMail in any way, I just don't believe that any MUA should try and handle SMTP. For the case of a standalone box without permanent connection I have to disagree. Keep it simple. Keep it simple indeed. Simple as in nullmailer or ssmtp. Both are examples that an MTA can be trivial, and the tried and true model of do one thing and do it well lives on. This kind of debate can go on and on (and often does on mutt-user when someone asks why can't mutt deliver to my ISPs mail relay?) It's a design decision. I think most people will agree that it's a cleaner design to keep it simple and have each program do one thing and do it well, especially when the tools to do the SMTP part already exist Freely =) My point is (with these seemingly somewhat conflicting statements) that practically speaking, it is possible, but from a philosophical point of view (i.e. if I had to design an MUA from scratch right now) SMTP probably doesn't have any place in an MUA. That's no reason to stop using your favorite MUA, though. good times, Vineet -- Currently seeking opportunities in the SF Bay Area Please see http://www.doorstop.net/resume.shtml pgpllnoVGPQcJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why use sendmail?
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Simon Hepburn wrote: | dman wrote: | On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:00:36PM +0100, Simon Hepburn wrote: | | John Lord wrote: | | Hi folks, | | | | | | Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction | | with KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? | | | | It depends on you situation | | | | If you are running a standalone box with dialup connection and you get | | your mail through your ISP, I would just let KMail handle remote mail for | | you. Put simply, it's a lot less hassle. Just configure exim to do local | | mail delivery for the benefit of cron and friends. This will save you a | | lot of time and confusion. | | FYI it is almost trivially easy to set exim up with smarthost | delivery. It becomes trivial when you are given the answers to the | questions about relaying. I posted step-by-step instructions on this | list a few months ago. If you want I can dig up the URL (I'm in | console now and the bookmark is in galeon). | | I'm sure that the person who started this thread would be interested in that | URL. Here it is : http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-user%40lists.debian.org/msg82754.html | However the fact that you had to post step by step instructions does | tend to undermine your argument that it is trivially easy. It might | be to you or me, but this list is littered with queries from new | users struggling to configure mta's. I can't recall ever having seen | someone stuck trying to configure kmail. The only problem with eximconfig is that it asks a few more questions than KMail or any other MUA would ask. In particular it asks what your local hostname is (for the HELO/EHLO line) and if you relay for any other domains. Those questions can trip up people unfamiliar with SMTP terminology. Other than that, it is trivial. -D -- A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends. Proverbs 16:28 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:00:04AM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote: | * Simon Hepburn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020401 00:20]: | dman wrote: | | Will KMail automatically try at ever-increasing intervals for a given | amount of time and then genarate a bounce that _will_ be delivered to | the sender if the mesasge can't be delivered? For the first point, if | | Well, these also aren't strict requirements of every MTA. No, but the only alternative is to bounce the message. Either the message _must_ be delivered, or a bounce _must_ be delivered to the sender. If neither of those occurs, you've just broken the reliable delivery property of SMTP. | I'm not discrediting KMail in any way, I just don't believe that | any MUA should try and handle SMTP. | | For the case of a standalone box without permanent connection I | have to disagree. Keep it simple. | | Keep it simple indeed. Always. Refactoring :-). | Simple as in nullmailer or ssmtp. Both are examples that an MTA can | be trivial, No. ssmtp is not a true MTA. It doesn't guarantee reliable delivery. It just implements enough of SMTP to make a smarthost accept a message if all goes well. If any errors occur it doesn't handle them gracefully. At least, its documentation says that. | and the tried and true model of do one thing and do it well lives on. Precisely :-). This goes hand-in-hand with KISS. | This kind of debate can go on and on (and often does on mutt-user | when someone asks why can't mutt deliver to my ISPs mail relay?) | It's a design decision. I think most people will agree that it's a | cleaner design to keep it simple and have each program do one thing | and do it well, especially when the tools to do the SMTP part | already exist Freely =) Right. | My point is (with these seemingly somewhat conflicting statements) that | practically speaking, it is possible, but from a philosophical point of | view (i.e. if I had to design an MUA from scratch right now) SMTP | probably doesn't have any place in an MUA. That's no reason to stop | using your favorite MUA, though. No, it's not a reason to stop using KMail (or whatever you are using). IMO it is a reason to not use that part of the code in it. -D -- For society, it's probably a good thing that engineers value function over appearance. For example, you wouldn't want engineers to build nuclear power plants that only _look_ like they would keep all the radiation inside. (Scott Adams - The Dilbert principle) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
John Lord wrote: Hi folks, Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? It depends on you situation If you are running a standalone box with dialup connection and you get your mail through your ISP, I would just let KMail handle remote mail for you. Put simply, it's a lot less hassle. Just configure exim to do local mail delivery for the benefit of cron and friends. This will save you a lot of time and confusion. You might want to read Linux Gazette #65 : A Private Home Network for some interesting security insights. If on the other hand you have a permanent connection and/or networked machines, there are advantages to doing things the traditional unix way. Apologies in advance to any unix diehards who consider this heresy :-) Simon Hepburn. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
dman wrote: The reason is that KMail is not a proper SMTP client. The RFCs (821, 2821) state that if a message can't be delivered to the next server in charge, then it must keep the message and retry later. It can't just say oh, well and give up. KMail (along with Lookout and every other User Agent) doesn't do this. In such a situation KMail keeps the undelivered message in the outbox. I don't think you could call that giving up. The message is not simply lost in cyberspace. How does Kmail keeping the message and trying again later differ from what an mta does ? -- Simon Hepburn. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
Lo, on Sunday, March 31, Simon Hepburn did write: dman wrote: The reason is that KMail is not a proper SMTP client. The RFCs (821, 2821) state that if a message can't be delivered to the next server in charge, then it must keep the message and retry later. It can't just say oh, well and give up. KMail (along with Lookout and every other User Agent) doesn't do this. Haven't read the RFCs in question: does that requirement apply to MUAs, or just MTAs? In such a situation KMail keeps the undelivered message in the outbox. I don't think you could call that giving up. The message is not simply lost in cyberspace. How does Kmail keeping the message and trying again later differ from what an mta does ? First, not all MUAs have that kind of functionality. In fact, the `traditional' Unix MUAs, written in the days before POP was the dominant mechanism for retrieving email, pretty much require that there be an MTA running locally which can handle queuing and delivery issues. (And, in general, this MTA darn well better be called /lib/sendmail or /usr/lib/sendmail!) The mailer that I use, VM, also makes this assumption, although it's possible to get it to talk to a remote MTA. It's been so long since I've used that configuration that I don't recall exactly what happens if the remote MTA is inaccessible. Second, if you've got exim running constantly (instead of from /etc/inetd.conf), it'll retry in the background without users having to take any action. I guess it's my software engineering/development training, but I like the idea of placing the queueing functionality in one place (the MTA), rather than replicating it out among lots of different places (all the various MUAs that people use). Still, I guess this is more important on a large multi-user system. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:08:41PM +0100, Simon Hepburn wrote: | dman wrote: | | The reason is that KMail is not a proper SMTP client. The RFCs (821, | 2821) state that if a message can't be delivered to the next server in | charge, then it must keep the message and retry later. It can't just | say oh, well and give up. KMail (along with Lookout and every other | User Agent) doesn't do this. | | In such a situation KMail keeps the undelivered message in the outbox. I | don't think you could call that giving up. The message is not simply lost | in cyberspace. Ok, so then KMail isn't _quite_ that evil. | How does Kmail keeping the message and trying again later differ | from what an mta does ? Will KMail automatically try at ever-increasing intervals for a given amount of time and then genarate a bounce that _will_ be delivered to the sender if the mesasge can't be delivered? For the first point, if you quit KMail it certainly can't. I imagine it requires you to press a button again to have it retry. For the second point, it is impossible. After all, the failure occured because kmail can't get to the server that is supposed to handle delivery. If it generates a bounce, then it would have to transfer it to the server it can't get to for delivery. I also question how complete and robust any MUA's SMTP implementation is. An MTA isn't a trivial project. Notice that I'm not discrediting KMail in any way, I just don't believe that any MUA should try and handle SMTP. -D -- Micros~1 : For when quality, reliability and security just aren't that important! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 09:50:44AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote: | Lo, on Sunday, March 31, Simon Hepburn did write: | | dman wrote: | | The reason is that KMail is not a proper SMTP client. The RFCs (821, | 2821) state that if a message can't be delivered to the next server in | charge, then it must keep the message and retry later. It can't just | say oh, well and give up. KMail (along with Lookout and every other | User Agent) doesn't do this. | | Haven't read the RFCs in question: does that requirement apply to MUAs, | or just MTAs? The RFCs don't talk about MUAs and MTAs. They talk about SMTP clients and SMTP servers. Any program that initiates an SMTP connection (and tries to transfer a message) is an SMTP client. It doesn't matter if it is a MUA or an MTA. [...] | Second, if you've got exim running constantly (instead of from | /etc/inetd.conf), The package has a cronjob to run exim -q every 15 minutes anyways. | it'll retry in the background without users having to | take any action. I guess it's my software engineering/development | training, but I like the idea of placing the queueing functionality in | one place (the MTA), rather than replicating it out among lots of | different places (all the various MUAs that people use). I wholly agree here. | Still, I guess this is more important on a large multi-user system. I think it is equally important for my one-user system. I think this line of thinking is part of what makes the biggest difference between MS products and UNIX. UNIX is built with large multi-user in mind, whereas Windows evolved from a single-user desktop system. Even for a home/family computer, multi-user is very important. Just tonight I was talking with a friend who was asking about the equalizer settings in winamp. If he loads a preset setting, winamp will retain that the next time it is run. Of course, if someone else in his family changes it, it won't be the way he left it. One feature of a multi-user system is separate settings for separate users. -D -- (E)ventually (M)allocs (A)ll (C)omputer (S)torage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:00:36PM +0100, Simon Hepburn wrote: | John Lord wrote: | | Hi folks, | | | Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with | KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? | | It depends on you situation | | If you are running a standalone box with dialup connection and you get your | mail through your ISP, I would just let KMail handle remote mail for you. Put | simply, it's a lot less hassle. Just configure exim to do local mail delivery | for the benefit of cron and friends. This will save you a lot of time and | confusion. FYI it is almost trivially easy to set exim up with smarthost delivery. It becomes trivial when you are given the answers to the questions about relaying. I posted step-by-step instructions on this list a few months ago. If you want I can dig up the URL (I'm in console now and the bookmark is in galeon). -D -- He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord. Proverbs 18:22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why use sendmail?
Hi folks, Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? I'm sorry but I can't see the reason why, but there probably is one. I have sat reading the various files about setting it up, but have drawn a blank. Having a bit of a confusing time atm ;-) -- Cheers John Amiga A1200 PPC running Linux/Apus Debian and KDE2.* Web site http://www.lordofchaos.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 11:40:41PM +, John Lord wrote: | Hi folks, | | Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with | KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? Use exim. It is easier to configure right, and has had fewer security exploits found in it. | I'm sorry but I can't see the reason why, but there probably is one. I have | sat reading the various files about setting it up, but have drawn a blank. | Having a bit of a confusing time atm ;-) The reason is that KMail is not a proper SMTP client. The RFCs (821, 2821) state that if a message can't be delivered to the next server in charge, then it must keep the message and retry later. It can't just say oh, well and give up. KMail (along with Lookout and every other User Agent) doesn't do this. It is better to use a local pipe, which will only fail if your system is hosed in some way, and then let a full-blown MTA do the delivery. HTH, -D -- Microsoft is to operating systems security what McDonald's is to gourmet cooking -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
At 06:59 PM 3/30/02, dman wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 11:40:41PM +, John Lord wrote: | Hi folks, | | Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with | KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? Use exim. It is easier to configure right, and has had fewer security exploits found in it. I remember reading on a different list, or was it the Linux Journal article that there has not been a security exploit for quite a while. In fact LJ had a half way decent article this month about setting up Sendmail as your MTA. I've used exim on one box, and postfix on the other. They are both set up for local mail only and found that both were fairly easy to set up. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
On 30-Mar-2002 John Lord wrote: Hi folks, Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? I'm sorry but I can't see the reason why, but there probably is one. I have sat reading the various files about setting it up, but have drawn a blank. Having a bit of a confusing time atm ;-) what if you want to send mail from something else? for instance the console program 'reportbug' which helps you submit proper bug reports. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
quote who=John Lord Hi folks, Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? I'm sorry but I can't see the reason why, but there probably is one. I have sat reading the various files about setting it up, but have drawn a blank. Having a bit of a confusing time atm ;-) Using sendmail is usually a generic term for calling sendmail directly or a sendmail wrapper(postfix, qmail and maybe exim have them), which allows you to spool to your local mail system without connecting over a network(some systems don't have a MTA listening on a port), it can be faster too. by doing this you sometimes have more control over the message delivery then if you were to use a remote mail server. you could have the mail server queue the message and send it when your system connects to the internet(in the case that its not a dedicated connection). since I run my own mail servers i usually just use SMTP(my mail client of choice is Squirrelmail and netscape 4.7x) nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use sendmail?
Lo, on Saturday, March 30, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry did write: On 30-Mar-2002 John Lord wrote: Hi folks, Just a simple question realy, why should I use sendmail in conjunction with KMail, rather than let KMail do the job? I'm sorry but I can't see the reason why, but there probably is one. I have sat reading the various files about setting it up, but have drawn a blank. Having a bit of a confusing time atm ;-) Sorry; missed the OP. Let me make sure I understand the question: you're trying to choose between two options. 1) Have your MUA (KMail) send outgoing mail directly to your ISP's mail relay. 2) Run an MTA like sendmail locally, have it relay outgoing mail up to your ISP, and configure the MUA to route outgoing mail through the local MTA. Right? what if you want to send mail from something else? for instance the console program 'reportbug' which helps you submit proper bug reports. That's one reason for option #2, sure. Another one: if, for whatever reason, the connection between you and your ISP is unavailable for a while, a locally-running MTA will automatically queue outgoing mail until delivery becomes possible again. No user action necessary. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
