Hello.
I'd like to help! ... not a clue if this fits your requirements or
whether it is indeed helpful. (Its meant to be my benefit to the
group, rather of awaiting replies to my own inquiries ...)
I use following setup in postfix, which I think is much greater then
exim. (exim and ppp/dialin
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 02:26:32AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Well, looking at your scripts:
you have won several Useless Use of Cat Awards
A bad habit of mine, I'm afraid...
Or perhaps pigeons just like cats. :)
Many a true word is spoken in jest... Some pigeons enjoy teasing cats,
and
Nano Nano wrote:
My first test message to the outside world bounced with:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host smtp.comcast.net[216.148.227.125] said:
550
[PERMFAIL] comcast.net requires valid sender (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
exim always added my Sender header for me.
I presume comcast is rejecting
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:39:54AM +0100, Tobias Reckhard wrote:
Nano Nano wrote:
My first test message to the outside world bounced with:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host smtp.comcast.net[216.148.227.125] said:
550
[PERMFAIL] comcast.net requires valid sender (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
Nano Nano wrote:
# postconf myorigin
myorigin = $myhostname
# postconf myhostname
myhostname = desk
OK. Some hosts will reject your host's HELO/EHLO, but the comcast thing
was probably due to your MAIL FROM: address' domain not being in the
Internet DNS.
Should I just change mail name during
Hi,
* Vincent Lefevre wrote (2004-01-31 01:09):
However, procmail isn't perfect. The main problem is that it isn't
very powerful and may need other tools (mainly formail, but also
perl for the most complicated filters). A 100% perl-based solution
(with primitives for MIME decoding) would probably
Moin,
* Adam Aube wrote (2004-01-31 04:18):
On Friday 30 January 2004 07:09 pm, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
However, procmail isn't perfect. The main problem is that it isn't
very powerful and may need other tools (mainly formail, but also
perl for the most complicated filters). A 100% perl-based
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-01-30 18:34:17 +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
See http://www.exim.org/ . Click on Documentation and FAQs.
There are several things I don't like:
You're probably right on most of those, exim filtering isn't
the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Nano Nano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:21:46AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2004-01-30 14:57:37 -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that
adds the correct From for list-replies. I
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:09:21AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
* A result of a pipe can't be retrieved (and that's why the FAQ
recommends to use procmail for such things).
...you mean that if you pipe a message through some external program
you can't then feed the output of that program
Incoming from Pigeon:
exim -bm. Useful if you want to avoid having to learn
Sanskrit^Wprocmail.
For example, the following is what I use to strip the advertising from
Yahoo Groups mailing list traffic:
Oh yes, that's far simpler than learning Sanskrit^Wprocmail. Yesiree,
Bob! You
On 2004-01-30 22:18:58 -0500, Adam Aube wrote:
Have you looked at maildrop?
I hesitated between maildrop and procmail and chose procmail propably
because I was already using it on another account. But maildrop is
installed on my machine. BTW, does anyone know when the new version
(1.6.3) will be
On 2004-01-31 18:43:10 +, Pigeon wrote:
...you mean that if you pipe a message through some external program
you can't then feed the output of that program back into exim? It
initially appears so, but it's straightforward to write a shellscript
wrapper for the external program that adds a
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:45:04PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Pigeon:
exim -bm. Useful if you want to avoid having to learn
Sanskrit^Wprocmail.
For example, the following is what I use to strip the advertising from
Yahoo Groups mailing list traffic:
Oh yes, that's far
On 2004-01-31 23:51:55 +, Pigeon wrote:
I don't think I'm trying to say don't use procmail. Just that
there's more than one way to skin a cat. Which is one of the things I
like about Linux. I had the choice between figure out procmail and
use bash / ed / exim which I already know; I took
On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned:
On 2004-01-30 11:03:07 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned:
But the man page is far from being clear and incomplete (compared
to the procmail man pages).
Have you looked at `man procmailex`? It has a lot of very
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:40:28PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Adam Aube wrote:
My personal preference is qmail. Not sure if it's available in the
Debian archive or not, but you can check out www.qmail.org for more
info - look for the links to netqmail.
Probably not given the nature of its
Hi,
* Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 07:01):
My first test message to the outside world bounced with:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host smtp.comcast.net[216.148.227.125] said:
550
[PERMFAIL] comcast.net requires valid sender (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
exim always added my Sender header for me.
Adam Aube wrote:
I've added patches for various purposes, but not for security. What
security problems were you patching against?
I consider fundimental checks against spam and viruses to be part and
parcel to security.
What idiotic ideas? qmail is designed to be secure, fast, and simple -
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
What's in the log for this message?
from /var/log/mail.log:
Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756:
to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=smtp.comcast.net[204.127.198.27],
delay=0, status=bounced (host
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:13:58 +1100
Ian Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the weekend, I will 'play'.
I just came across this comparison of the four which I found interesting.
http://shearer.org/en/writing/mtacomparison.html
Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also
clamav,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:52:13PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
What's in the log for this message?
from /var/log/mail.log:
Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756:
to=[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
That just FUD. It may not be the easiest MTA to work with but the above
is just misleading and wrong.
Is it?
Queue maintenance? Correct me if I'm wrong but is this FUD.
Removing a message from Exim's queue:
exim -Mrm message-ID
Removing a message from qmail's
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:00:49PM +0800, Katipo wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:13:58 +1100
http://shearer.org/en/writing/mtacomparison.html
^^^
Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also
clamav, spamassassin, amavis, spamc.
Procmail is an MDA. The
Moin,
* Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 08:52):
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
What's in the log for this message?
from /var/log/mail.log:
Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756:
to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=smtp.comcast.net[204.127.198.27],
delay=0,
Moin,
* Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 08:52):
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
What's in the log for this message?
from /var/log/mail.log:
Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756:
to=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=smtp.comcast.net[204.127.198.27],
delay=0,
Lucas Albers wrote:
Sendmail does a lot, the milter interface allows you to
massage/filter/virus scan email, and reject at the 5xx level.
Doing it with Exim as well. *shrug*
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:40:28 -0800
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Aube wrote:
My personal preference is qmail. Not sure if it's available in the Debian
archive or not, but you can check out www.qmail.org for more info - look
for the links to netqmail.
Probably not given
Katipo wrote:
Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also
clamav, spamassassin, amavis, spamc.
procmail is largely unneeded with exim.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:02:25AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
Moin,
* Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 08:52):
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
What's in the log for this message?
from /var/log/mail.log:
Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756:
Moin,
* Katipo wrote (2004-01-30 09:00):
Procmail is definitely worth looking at.
If you like Sendmail, you'll *love* Procmail. For other people, try a
software which looks less like line noise.
I started using Maildrop for real a couple of weeks ago and I am quite
impressed. Nothing from my
On 29 Jan 2004, Lucas Albers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
linux.debian.user:
I am not sure why you need to upgrade postfix to a newer version
from stable? What new wizbang items does it do?
I'm sure there is a proper directory to do this in, but I normally
make a subdir in /tmp.
edit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Nano Nano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:43PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Configuration: Internet with smarthost
Append .domain? No
Smtp relay host? My ISPs smtp server
Final destination domains? default choices
---Force synchronous
On Friday 30 January 2004 02:59 am, Steve Lamb wrote:
Queue maintenance? Correct me if I'm wrong but is this FUD.
Removing a message from Exim's queue:
exim -Mrm message-ID
Removing a message from qmail's queue:
Issue command to shut down qmail.
Sometimes wait up to 20m for it to
On 2004-01-30 00:08:41 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Katipo wrote:
Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also
clamav, spamassassin, amavis, spamc.
procmail is largely unneeded with exim.
Could you explain why?
--
Vincent Lefèvre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Web: http://www.vinc17.org/ - 100%
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Could you explain why?
Procmail is an MDA which provides filtering.
Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. For
example here's the filter for this list:
# Debian-user
if
$h_List-ID: contains debian-user.lists.debian.org
then
save
On 2004-01-30, Thorsten Haude penned:
--ryJZkp9/svQ58syV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Moin,
* Katipo wrote (2004-01-30 09:00):
Procmail is definitely worth looking at.
If you like Sendmail, you'll
On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. For
example here's the filter for this list:
# Debian-user
if
$h_List-ID: contains debian-user.lists.debian.org
then
save Mail/debian-user
endif
But the man page is
On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned:
On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering.
For example here's the filter for this list:
# Debian-user if $h_List-ID: contains
debian-user.lists.debian.org then save
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Vincent Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering.
But the man page is far from being clear and incomplete (compared to
the procmail man pages).
First, what
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 06:36:44PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. For
example here's the filter for this list:
# Debian-user
if
$h_List-ID: contains
Hi,
* Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 09:16):
Jan 29 21:54:37 desk postfix/pickup[1851]: E6A93145E1: uid=[removed] from=[removed]
Jan 29 21:54:37 desk postfix/cleanup[1856]: E6A93145E1: message-id=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan 29 21:54:37 desk postfix/qmgr[1852]: E6A93145E1: from=[EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 10:28:43PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
I deliver my mails with a valid from address, which [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
not. Maybe you should fix your MUA?
Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that
adds the correct From for list-replies. I guess
On 2004-01-30 11:03:07 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned:
But the man page is far from being clear and incomplete (compared to
the procmail man pages).
Have you looked at `man procmailex`? It has a lot of very clear
examples.
I was complaining at
On 2004-01-30 18:34:17 +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
See http://www.exim.org/ . Click on Documentation and FAQs.
Thanks. The FAQ says to use procmail. :)
The same documentation is available as a text file in
/usr/share/doc/exim (spec.txt and filter.txt).
There are several things I
On 2004-01-30 14:57:37 -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that
adds the correct From for list-replies. I guess I'll have to make sure
Mutt adds a valid From or Sender in all cases.
I'll have to make sure all mail-generating programs
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:21:46AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2004-01-30 14:57:37 -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that
adds the correct From for list-replies. I guess I'll have to make sure
Mutt adds a valid From or Sender
Dan Lawrence said:
I am not sure why you need to upgrade postfix to a newer version
from stable? What new wizbang items does it do?
damn just do apt-get -t testing install postfix
But I was wondering was thus?
Not how to upgrade,but...
Why upgrade to the newer version of postfix?
--
--Luke
On Friday 30 January 2004 07:09 pm, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
However, procmail isn't perfect. The main problem is that it isn't
very powerful and may need other tools (mainly formail, but also
perl for the most complicated filters). A 100% perl-based solution
(with primitives for MIME decoding)
Hi,
I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an
advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance
etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who have used both.
Is there something better than either of them ?
I have very little
On Thursday 29 January 2004 11:50 pm, Ian Perry wrote:
I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is
there an advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of
setup/maintenance etc ? I would be interested in comments from those
who have used both.
Is there
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:50:54 +1100
Ian Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an
advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance
etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who have used
Ian Perry wrote:
I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an
advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance
etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who have used both.
Sendmail - so difficult to configure the
Ian Perry wrote:
I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an
advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance
etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who have used both.
sendmail is probably more difficult.
Is there something
Adam Aube wrote:
My personal preference is qmail. Not sure if it's available in the Debian
archive or not, but you can check out www.qmail.org for more info - look
for the links to netqmail.
Probably not given the nature of its license.
qmail, by default, will not relay AT ALL, and I have
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:36:22PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
That's where the comperison ends for me. I've never found a need for
sendmail in the modern 'net populated with Postfix and Exim.
Well, i just bit the bullet: I installed postfix-tls on Sid.
Up till now I just answer the
On Friday 30 January 2004 12:40 am, Steve Lamb wrote:
qmail, by default, will not relay AT ALL, and I have found it very
easy to install and setup.
o.O I've had to work with QMail and I have to say that it is one
big giant headache.
I disagree, but we are each entitled to our
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:43PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
Configuration: Internet with smarthost
Append .domain? No
Smtp relay host? My ISPs smtp server
Final destination domains? default choices
---Force synchronous updates on mail queue? Yes
Is that it? Just drop in and go? I did
At 2004-01-30T05:11:23Z, Adam Aube [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not sure if it's available in the Debian archive or not,
It's in non-free. qmail isn't free software.
--
Kirk Strauser
In Googlis non est, ergo non est.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Over the weekend, I will 'play'.
I just came across this comparison of the four which I found interesting.
http://shearer.org/en/writing/mtacomparison.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Lamb said:
Sendmail - so difficult to configure the configuration language needs
a
macro language to make sense of it.
Exim - so easy to configure that in most cases you can do it with the
comments in the config file.
That's where the comperison ends for me. I've
Tobias Reckhard said:
I'll throw postfix into the ring. It's very secure and still very
flexible. You may want to use a more recent version than the one in
woody, though, but a backport is available on http://www.backports.org.
I am not sure why you need to upgrade postfix to a newer version
On 29 Jan 2004, Ian Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
linux.debian.user:
I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is
there an advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of
setup/maintenance etc ? I would be interested in comments from
those who have used
63 matches
Mail list logo
