On Sat Feb 23, 2002 at 08:12:57AM -0800, Jerry Van Brimmer wrote:
[...snip...]
> I'm brand new to Mutt, so any advice is welcome.
Well, I don't use POP myself, so I haven't tried mutt's
pop-functionalities. However, I'm sure others can be of assistance
with this.
If what you're trying to do i
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 12:27:15 +0100
Martin Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri Feb 22, 2002 at 11:54:38PM -0800, Jerry Van Brimmer wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > # POP #
> > set pop_user = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> [...snip...]
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 12:27:15PM +0100, Martin Karlsson wrote:
> The 'USER: unknown' bit makes me think you should try just:
>
> set pop_user = "jerryvb"
>
> Otherwise the POP-server thinks you're trying to log in as
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@pop3.ispwest.com.
I don't think that's the problem. I tr
On Fri Feb 22, 2002 at 11:54:38PM -0800, Jerry Van Brimmer wrote:
[...snip...]
> # POP #
> set pop_user = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[...snip...]
> Every time I try to read my mail Mutt says that login failed:
>
> "Login failed. USER:
Newbie to Mutt here. I'm just getting started, and I'm trying to get a working
rc file set up. I think I have all the basics except that my ISP requires me to
login with username and password to read my mail. I can't get Mutt to login.
Here's a copy of my POP section:
# POP ##
Hallo Charles Jie,
on Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:52:34AM +0800, Charles Jie wrote:
> Is it possible for mutt to switch smtp server (by default it uses my
> postfix) to my ISP's with send-hook? I didn't find a related variable.
As mentioned in an earlier posting the smtp-part
se my own server to send it mail. What I can do is using ISP's smtp
> > > server.
> > >
> > > Is it possible for mutt to switch smtp server (by default it uses my
> > > postfix) to my ISP's with send-hook? I didn't find a related variable.
> >
&g
Charles Jie wrote:
>
> Do you mean that mutt can not have and switch among multiple smtp
> servers like netscape does?
mutt doesn't speak SMTP at all.
w
Thank you, Scott.
Do you mean that mutt can not have and switch among multiple smtp
servers like netscape does?
best regards,
charlie
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:26:48PM -0500, Scott Lambert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:52:34AM +0800, Charles Jie wrote:
> > Due to an annoying
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:52:34AM +0800, Charles Jie wrote:
> Due to an annoying firewall strategy on a mailing list server, I can not
> use my own server to send it mail. What I can do is using ISP's smtp
> server.
>
> Is it possible for mutt to switch smtp server (b
Due to an annoying firewall strategy on a mailing list server, I can not
use my own server to send it mail. What I can do is using ISP's smtp
server.
Is it possible for mutt to switch smtp server (by default it uses my
postfix) to my ISP's with send-hook? I didn't find a r
use plaintext passwords
# noactive: disallow methods subject to active (non-dictionary) attack
# nodictionary: disallow methods subject to passive (dictionary) attack
# noanonymous: disallow methods that allow anonymous authentication
#
# By default, the Postfix
I'll give it a shot, but as I understand it, according to RFC 2554, any
MTA that receives an authenticated email will forward that authentication. So,
is there a way to get Mutt to send an authenticated email to my local server?
I found a page on doing this with Exim as well, but I'm won
Michael P. Soulier wrote:
>
> I know Mutt does not deliver mail, but Rogers just switched to
> requiring smtp authentication and I'd prefer to smarthost through
> them. Is anyone aware of an smtp server that does authentication?
sendmail, i'm pretty sure does (i know
Hey people.
I know Mutt does not deliver mail, but Rogers just switched to requiring
smtp authentication and I'd prefer to smarthost through them. Is anyone aware
of an smtp server that does authentication?
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IMHO opnion you are asking the wrong questions.
Whay is it so difficult to use Postfix to receive SMTP
mail ? I do.
--
Regards
Cliff
* Willy Sutrisno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I just began trying this great MUA program, and I liked it very much.
> But I have a small problem. Can anyone tell me how to use smtp server
> in my mutt. In pine, there is a field where you can put your smtp
> server, but
* Will Yardley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> setting a relayhost (or 'smart host' in sendmail's terminology) in
> sendmail is also fairly easy.
Debian's exim package includes the option of such a setup when you
install/reconfigure it, too. iirc, not used Debian in a while :)
--
Thomas 'Freaky'
Ren? Clerc wrote:
>
> Mutt requires an SMTP daemon running on the local machine. If you're
> running postfix, as I conclude from your first post, why not use it?
>
> In the other case, you could check out nullmailer or ssmtp. Links to
> be found under "Other Recommen
> OK, thats not what I mean. If you want me to set the variable like above. Its done
>before I write the first email. I want to use my ISP provider SMTP server, so I need
>the variable for it. I have done the search at Mutt manual, but they never say
>anything about SMTP server,
to set the variable like
| above. Its done before I write the first email. I want to use my ISP
| provider SMTP server, so I need the variable for it. I have done the
| search at Mutt manual, but they never say anything about SMTP server,
| they do have ESMTP which is out of my question.
Mutt requires a
u installed Postfix.
>
> Check out the manual.
>
> And, while you're at it, check out how to make your EDITOR wrap at
> approx. 72 characters ;)
>
OK, thats not what I mean. If you want me to set the variable like above. Its done
before I write the first email. I want to us
* Willy Sutrisno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [15-12-2001 15:29]:
| I just began trying this great MUA program, and I liked it very
| much. But I have a small problem. Can anyone tell me how to use smtp
| server in my mutt. In pine, there is a field where you can put your
| smtp server, but in mutt
Hi,
I just began trying this great MUA program, and I liked it very much. But I have a
small problem. Can anyone tell me how to use smtp server in my mutt. In pine, there is
a field where you can put your smtp server, but in mutt I try to search it but I can
not find it. If I do not use my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Abu Hudzaefah [26/09/01 09:40 +0700]:
> How to set mutt with smtp-server using SMTP-AUTH?
> Anybody please help me.
That's the job of your local sendmail / exim / postfix or whatever.
RTFM the FAQs of whichever MTA you use.
How to set mutt with smtp-server using SMTP-AUTH?
Anybody please help me.
~yusril~
ompiling
> something of your own, make sure you check whether it will work by
> attempting an outgoing connection to port 25 (of any reliable smtp
> server). If the policy is to redirect all mail to a screening host, I'd
> be surprised if there wasn't a firewall rule to enforc
e to
> bypass it altogether.
Before you spend a lot of time and energy downloading and compiling
something of your own, make sure you check whether it will work by
attempting an outgoing connection to port 25 (of any reliable smtp
server). If the policy is to redirect all mail to a screening host, I
Nate Johnston [mutt-users] <13/08/01 07:28 -0500>:
> This is a multi-user system and I do not have superuser priveliges. My
> impression is that compiling and installing a home-directory local copy
> of sendmail is an exercise best avoided if possible.
Then you are better off with Masqmail /
> My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies
> that have been implemented locally. Redirecting all mail from the Unix
> host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and "content" screened is a
> decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has
> already
uot;content" screened is a
decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has
already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to
bypass it altogether.
> > that will connect to a remote mailserver using SMTP AUTH and send just
> > the ema
> > > Now, I'm getting "relaying prohibited" errors when I sendmail -q
> > > That's curious - most ISPs allow relaying from their domains i.e. if you
> > > dial in to oceanfree, you can use smtp.oceanfree.net for smtp, and there's
> > > no need
urious - most ISPs allow relaying from their domains i.e. if you
> > dial in to oceanfree, you can use smtp.oceanfree.net for smtp, and there's
> > no need for pop before smtp authentication. If smtp.oceanfree.net suddenly
If there's pop before smtp, put a script into ip-up.loca
>
Subject: Re: [ILUG] oceanfree smtp relaying problem
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 09:42:03PM +0100 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Niall O Broin thought:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 05:31:54PM +0100, Conor Daly wrote:
> >
> > I'm using mail.oceanfree.net for pop and smtp.oceanfre
> > Mutt doesnt ask for it - and postfix / exim / qmail dont implement DSN at all
>
> Postfix now supports DNS:
>
> Major changes with snapshot-2924
>
>
> DSN formatted bounced/delayed mail notifications, finally. The
> human-
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 02:52:01PM -0700, Monte Milanuk wrote:
> I highly recommend the script 'install-sendmail' available at:
>
> http://cork.linux.ie/projects/install-sendmail/
Well, it may be wonderfull, but it didn't work for me -- I really, do
not remember, what was the problem. But cer
this endless flamewar, but I may be
helpfull to you being actuall luser (actually, I am former lawyer, now
switching to study of social sciences). I really do not care whether
SMTP capability is included in mutt or not. However, what DO I care a
lot is an incredible pain in neck, which was to
Brendan Cully [mutt-users] :
>nail. I've talked to him about IMAP and seen him trying to read his
>mail on the road, and at least a couple of years ago he didn't
>really seem to understand what IMAP was for. Probably had something
>to do with the paucity of decent IMAP clients th
* On [010517 19:15] Mike Schiraldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, i'm sick of using external encryption suites like GPG. I think mutt
> should absorb all their functionality. And all those external apps in
> .mailcap, too. And i'm sick of having to install Unix before i can use
> mutt. mutt is
Brendan Cully wrote:
> IMAP always gets dragged into this, and it's a red herring. Fetchmail
> cannot fully replace the functionality of mutt's IMAP code, and
> neither can any other tool. IMAP is a mailbox driver, and as such is
> the province of the MUA.
What confuses me about fetchmail is that
On Wed, 16 May 2001 12:54:05 -0400 Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> > Mutt needs mindshare. Otherwise we all lose. Some day you'll wake up and
> > mutt won't be able to read mail cause 99% of the world is using
> > proprietary MS|Sun|Oracle|Whatever extensions.
> The best protection against all those exte
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 06:35:24AM +0200, Thomas Roessler
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 2001-05-16 20:22:09 -0400, Rich Lafferty wrote:
>
> >You'd be surprised. "Use mutt with -x" is a standard answer to the
> >(increasingly common) question, "How can I send mail with an
> >attachment from m
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:27:44PM -0400, William Park wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
> >
> > >Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
> > >make a habit of using it very often.
On 2001-05-16 20:22:09 -0400, Rich Lafferty wrote:
>You'd be surprised. "Use mutt with -x" is a standard answer to the
>(increasingly common) question, "How can I send mail with an
>attachment from my noninteractive process?" (Except that they
>usually mispel "noninteractive process" as "CGI s
Thomas Roessler [mutt-users] :
> Pine also includes a crappy editor (pico - which is nevertheless
> used by some people in order to ruin their configuration files), and
> a full-blown file manager (pilot, if I recall this correctly).
Pico is a pretty good editor for newbies (at whom pine wa
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 05:27:44PM -0400, William Park ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
> >
> > >Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
> > >make a habit of
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
>
> >Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
> >make a habit of using it very often. unset $editor or specify
> >"-x" on the commandline, not that I make
On 2001-05-16 16:39:32 -0400, Mr. Wade wrote:
>Mutt also has a built-in editor, "crappy" or otherwise, not that I
>make a habit of using it very often. unset $editor or specify
>"-x" on the commandline, not that I make a practice of using it
>very often. :o)
It doesn't even have a full-scre
On 2001-05-16 15:24:24 -0400, Brendan Cully wrote:
>what would be cool is if you could say
>sendmail='securesendmail -u $smtp_user -p $smtp_pass'
>ie mutt exposes its config variables, and reevaluates them when
>running the command. But I haven't thought about how to do that,
>it's certainly i
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Pine also includes a crappy editor (pico - which is nevertheless
> used by some people in order to ruin their configuration files), and
> a full-blown file manager (pilot, if I recall this correctly).
>
> Just don't quote it as an example.
>
> (OK, we have a directory
On 2001-05-16 23:31:03 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Pine for instance? It normally delivers to local sendmail, but
>will happily deliver to an external delivery server (using
>sendmail -bs and talking smtp)
Pine also includes a crappy editor (pico - which is nevertheless
Some people wrote:
> > Sorry, but Unix is built out of tools. Use them (or use Emacs, which
> > has everything built in).
> >
> You mean mutt should be like emacs and have everything built-in?
Not to start another flamewar, but emacs doesn't have everything
"built-in". Rather, functionality is e
On 2001-05-16 17:01:16 +0200, Dumas Patrice wrote:
>It is my opinion, and I am not a sysadmin, but if I were ;-), I
>wouldn't like sendmail or even postfix to be installed on
>workstations, as I think it is bad and unusefull in a classical
>LAN architecture. sSMTP is a good replacement, but ha
Biju Chacko proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > Then you would better serve your agenda by contributing to that
> > project than by lobbying for Mutt to bend in that direction. If
> > you want to work on an
On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Yes, telling the user "try later" or "postpone your message and fix your
> config" is better than injecting the message into a poorly configured
> /usr/sbin/sendail that will drop it on the floor without reporting it.
What a great alternative
rst (reimplement sendmail). Then
> > >
> > > Huh? Adding a few dozen lines of code to deliver via SMTP is
> > > "reimplementing sendmail"? You need a serious reality check.
> >
> > "a few dozen lines of code"... Did you ever write a SMTP clien
On 2001-05-16 19:31 +0530, Biju Chacko wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > But don't make Mutt users pay for something they won't use.
>
> While I agree with the need to keep one's MUAs and MTAs seperate, I find your
> argument flawed. There are literally d
_good_ reason for a _tight_
integration of SMTP-features into mutt.
> - many windows users have dear memories their DOS sofware and
> (Wordperfect 5.1 anyone?) and would welcome a Cygwin mutt, but not at
> the price of configuring some additional software,
Then the cygwin mutt should
an use it in place of a MUA if you're *really* strange.
I guess the point is that you don't have to be running an SMTP service
to make use of sendmail.
> It is my opinion, and I am not a sysadmin, but if I were ;-), I
> wouldn't like sendmail or even postfix to be installed o
is especially
> true with MTA which listens on the SMTP port.
Then you've been misreading pretty much everyone's point thus
far. Sending mail is the task of an MTA, whether it be something that
someone who has the root password installed, or something that someone
who has a user'
Hi,
I think there is an argument in favor of including rough support of MTA in
mutt, which is that MTA handling should be a system administrator (root) task
and not a user's task. It is especially true with MTA which listens on the
SMTP port.
When users haven't root privileges
On Wed, May 16, 2001, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > You're going to add an MTA first (reimplement sendmail). Then
>
> Huh? Adding a few dozen lines of code to deliver via SMTP is
> "reimplementing sendmail"? You need a serious reality check.
"a few d
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:40:33PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> Then you would better serve your agenda by contributing to that
> project than by lobbying for Mutt to bend in that direction. If
> you want to work on an SMTP-aware MUA, more power to you. But
> don't make M
oblem.
BTW
Many Linux distributions (yes, mutt is used on many other OS, too,
_no_ OS-war) provide a preconfigured MTA. The user has just to
configure it. Using all those graphical frontends that should be no
problem. Therefore I do not see the direct profit for integrating SMTP
into mutt.
Developers, ple
On 2001-05-16 11:45 +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Purists and
> Cassandras that cry out each time a user asks for SMTP delivery in mutt
> are out of touch.
No they're not. They're very much in touch with what they need
and want.
> Mutt should be accessible out
Manoj Naik wrote:
> I want to use mutt to send mail to non-local SMTP server.
Mutt does not do that. What it will do is call a commandline
program, (usually sendmail,) and feed it the complete message,
header and body. Generally, that commandline program called by
Mutt will then send
Hello,
I want to use mutt to send mail to non-local SMTP server.
I have read FAQ which says it is not mutts job and I have to configyre the
MTa for this.
Can anybody help me out on how to configure the MTA like sendmail/null
mailer to do this and any changes in mutt configuration required for
* Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mutt-users] <14/04/01 07:14 -0500>:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 08:35:29AM +0530 or thereabouts, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>wrote:
> > Try http://www.hserus.net/pop_smtp.html for how to configure smarthosting
> > (plus a couple of other things, like turning off local d
> > The only sticking point is djb's licensing. He purposely
> > makes it obtuse and purposely does not license it to the
> > norms
>
> djb's licensing not only sticks but sucks !! Throw out
> qmail and move over to Exim. It is you choice in the final
> lap...so run.
OK, this religious debate
Igor Pruchanskiy proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> FEATURE(`dnsbl',`input.orbs.org',`Open relay - see http://www.orbs.org/')dnl
you might want to take a look at http://www.orbs.org/usingindex.html
it is inputs.orbs.org (note the plural)
-s
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian + Wallopus Malletus
dul.mail-abuse.org',`Dialup - see http://www.mail-abuse.org/dul/')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`relays.mail-abuse.org',`Open relay - see
http://www.mail-abuse.org/rss/')dnl
FEATURE(`dnsbl',`input.orbs.org',`Open relay - see http://www.orbs.org/')dnl
MAILER(`local'
Apr 16, 2001 at 10:00:42PM, CB posts:
> The only sticking point is djb's licensing. He purposely
> makes it obtuse and purposely does not license it to the
> norms
djb's licensing not only sticks but sucks !! Throw out
qmail and move over to Exim. It is you choice in the final
lap...so run.
h piece runs as a distinct user
(that's not root).
In other words, if you compromise the SMTP program, you still have no
access to the queue, because the user that the SMTP program runs as has
no access to the queue.
Sendmail is still one big nasty thing and if you compromise its user,
you
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:37:54PM -0700, Igor Pruchanskiy wrote:
> Sendmail does rock. *I* think that it is better then qmail.
> 8.12.0.Beta7, wich is currently out now does not need to run as root anymore.
> Don't want beta ? 8.11.3 is stable.
Nice. Only took sendmail a decade or so to figure
Igor Pruchanskiy proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Sendmail does rock. *I* think that it is better then qmail.
> 8.12.0.Beta7, wich is currently out now does not need to run as root anymore.
> Don't want beta ? 8.11.3 is stable.
> So looks like qmail's advantage of non-root thing is not an advan
Sendmail does rock. *I* think that it is better then qmail.
8.12.0.Beta7, wich is currently out now does not need to run as root anymore.
Don't want beta ? 8.11.3 is stable.
So looks like qmail's advantage of non-root thing is not an advantage anymore, is it ?
:))
igor
On Tue 17 Apr 2001, Sure
CB proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> exactly what I would call easy. I just (and I mean JUST) fixed a
> problem where my local sendmail was sending it out with the local
> machinename which doesn't resolve externally. As a result, I was
> getting a lot of rejects from destination mail servers
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:29:28PM -0500, Tim Whitehead wrote:
> more flexibility (hence configurability) besides the fact that it claims that it
> "makes sendmail obsolete" (http://www.qmail.org).
The only sticking point is djb's licensing. He purposely makes it
obtuse and purposely does not l
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:24:26PM -0700, Joe Copeland wrote:
> How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
> server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
> 192.168.1.15 instead.
You could try configuring your local s
Tim Whitehead proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> more flexibility (hence configurability) besides the fact that it claims that it
> "makes sendmail obsolete" (http://www.qmail.org).
Everybody claims something or the other ...
-s (tried sendmail 8.11.2 betas lately? they rock)
--
Su
If you look at the headers from this mailing list you'll see that it uses qmail.
I personally chose qmail because I needed something that fetchmail could connect
to (ie. a mail system listening on port 25 (smtp)).
My original setup was with ssmtp, but the ability to recieve mail direct
Jeff Turner proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Many Unix MUAs (pine, kmail, etc) do talk SMTP. Heck, the only other unix
> MUA I've used that *doesn't* talk SMTP natively is "mail".
and elm
> > It calls the program sendmail directly and pipes the message t
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:18:47PM -0400, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> from the secret journal of Joe Copeland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
> > server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:24:26PM -0700, Joe Copeland wrote:
> How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
> server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
> 192.168.1.15 instead.
Mutt (and MUAs on Unix, in general) do
from the secret journal of Joe Copeland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
> server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
> 192.168.1.15 instead.
>
Mutt, like almost every other pr
How do I configure mutt to use another smtp server rather than the sendmail
server that's setup by default with redhat? I want to use my mailserver at
192.168.1.15 instead.
Joe
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 07:40:24PM -0800, Patrick Berry wrote:
> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian had the thought that... <<<
>
> > Peter BARABAS proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> >
> > > Is there a patch that supports the SMTP AUTH command?
>
>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian had the thought that... <<<
> Peter BARABAS proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>
> > Is there a patch that supports the SMTP AUTH command?
>
> You'd need to set up sendmail / postfix / whatever for that. That's not
>
Peter BARABAS proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Is there a patch that supports the SMTP AUTH command?
You'd need to set up sendmail / postfix / whatever for that. That's not
mutt's job.
hth
--s
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis
mallet @ clue
hello,
Is there a patch that supports the SMTP AUTH command?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Z.
--
^ { Peter BARABAS } { [EMAIL PROTECTED] } { [EMAIL PROTECTED] } $ {\n}
^ $me = 'Z0D'; $me_regexp = '/^(Z[03]D|q{Z0D})$/'; $ {\n}
^ daemon:x:1:1:th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> yep, it's an Z class address (IPv6) allocated for Mars people and mutters.
> :-D
for martians? oh I see ... I thought it was only for residents of the planet
Zeta Centauri in the sugsezxystsryian galaxy.
-s
--
Suresh Ramasubrama
[EMAIL PROTECTED] proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> For sendmail I recall it to be sort of the same (smtp:) but don't
> recall the actual configuration file name.
Sendmail has only one config file, not several dozen :) It's a simple matter
of editing sendmail
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 04:30:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [lame-and-lazy-request]
> anyone using maildrop can share a rules file?
In it's most basic setup (I only use header matching rules, that it):
if([EMAIL PROTECTED]/:h)
{
to "./Maildir/mutt-users/"
}
if(/^To: [EMAIL PROT
Hi Suresh!
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > but not on the Internet via my modem. If this sounds like your story, check
> > the setup of your sendmail, specifically DNS. The number is supplied by your
> > ISP in the format of 987.654.32.1 Now I'm a happy camper except for
Hi Dave!
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Dave Murray wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:25:00PM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any way to configure mutt to send mail through a non-local SMTP
> > server?
> >
> > Yes, I've read the FAQ ent
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:35:16PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Dave Murray proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>
> > That helped me, but it did not address the fact that I had
> > no DNS setting for my ISP configured for sendmail.
>
> Put your ISP's DNS servers in /etc/resolv.conf then
Dave Murray proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> That helped me, but it did not address the fact that I had
> no DNS setting for my ISP configured for sendmail.
Put your ISP's DNS servers in /etc/resolv.conf then :)
-s
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis
mallet @
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:37:12AM +, Conor Daly wrote:
> Funnily enough, I'm doing exactly that:- running sendmail on a box with an
> internal IP through an IP Masq box and I set it all up using
> Donncha O'Caoimh's "install-sendmail" script available from http://cork.linux.ie
>
> That's th
Conor Daly proclaimed on mutt-users that:
> Funnily enough, I'm doing exactly that:- running sendmail on a box with an
> internal IP through an IP Masq box and I set it all up using
> Donncha O'Caoimh's "install-sendmail" script available from http://cork.linux.ie
> That's the way to go.
Doing
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 04:27:47PM +1100 or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> For other users in my position, namely with a machine without a hostname and/or
> externally visible IP, my advice is to stay clear of sendmail/qmail and try ssmtp.
Funnily enough, I'm doing exactly that:- runnin
401 - 500 of 623 matches
Mail list logo
