Hi Ken,
> My main issue is that this is the mailing list for nmh, not for
> Postfix. When people email here with problems that _ARE NOT NMH
> PROBLEMS_, but problems with postfix/sendmail/exim/god knows what,
> clearly this is the wrong forum.
I think it's the right forum for establishing where
>I could not disagree more, and if its for political reasons;
>i think that today with TLS plain passwords are all you need,
>other cruft should leave codebases as soon as possible.
Well, obviously I disagree with that but I will point out that without
the right architecture in place if all you
Ken Hornstein wrote in <20190710152824.2d9b961...@pb-smtp21.pobox.com>:
...
|all of the time? Secondly ... I am seeing more and more authentication
|methods that require keeping some kind of state and possibly user
|interaction in the MUA (GSSAPI and XOAUTH2 are two examples that I have
>But for the larger issue of whether or not you should submit email to
>your own SMTP server or your email provider's ... well, obviously my
>OPINION is that you should submit it to your email provider's server
>directly from nmh (see previous emails on why I think this). But plenty
>of people
>>So, yes, lots of people DO rely on giant email providers. Why would
>>they not?
>
>In answer to your (retorical) question... privacy.
I mean, yeah ... but I will note Gmail is NOT the only option when it
comes to email providers (you will note I am not using gmail).
--Ken
--
nmh-workers
In message <20190710150334.894c178...@pb-smtp20.pobox.com>,
Ken Hornstein wrote:
>So, yes, lots of people DO rely on giant email providers. Why would they
>not?
In answer to your (retorical) question... privacy.
Back to logging outgoing messages.
A reason that people want to do this is so that they can track whether emails
get delivered or not. Given spam, nobody reads postmaster bounces anymore.
(I remember when I got CC's of all bounces...)
So three things that I've wanted to implement for awhile
Date:Wed, 10 Jul 2019 11:28:20 -0400
From:Ken Hornstein
Message-ID: <20190710152824.2d9b961...@pb-smtp21.pobox.com>
| But do the users provide you the queue-id?
They will (sometimes) provide whatever info has been returned to
them, if the queue-id has been
>> But I can't recommend it to the average nmh user.
>
>Thereby nobbling support for non-nmh email on their Unix system, and
>that's a shame if they don't consider that as part of the decision.
My main issue is that this is the mailing list for nmh, not for Postfix.
When people email here with
Hi Ken,
> But do the users provide you the queue-id?
Very occasionally on first contact. Those that do clearly know their
onions. When roles are reversed, I do. :-) Those that don't get asked
to try and supply it if they're likely to return soon.
> > I'd keep the 250 as I expect we'd be
>>Personally, I'd just suggest keeping the local MTA, having post deliver
>>to that, and let it do the logging
>
>That's exactly what I've always done, from time immemorial until just
>about two weeks ago.
>
>Ironically enough I actually prefer to do it this way, but I was under the
>impression
>That's unfortunate. I've mostly worked with sendmail, and I've never
>seen a case where the QID wasn't sent back to the originating MTA, so
>I wasn't aware that the RFCs don't require that behaviour.
Officially, everything after the "250 " is just ASCII text without any
specific format (that's
>I grovel around MTA logs on a machine hosting Mailman for all the UK LUG
>lists and the queue ID is the key thing. It's the first thing I have to
>work out if it's not provided.
But do the users provide you the queue-id? That's what I'm really curious
about.
>I'd keep the 250 as I expect we'd
>Any rational (MTA) client does.
No argument there.
>MUA's typically don't, but those should
>not really ever be talking to anything but their local MTA.
Right, and since nmh is a MUA ...
>What is
>different now than what used to be true, is what people regard as their
>local MTA, which in the
>I've just added
>
>send: -push
>
>to ~/.mh_profile.
I would caution people that we had a user who discovered some of his
emails were going nowhere and didn't realize it because he was using
-push and mhbuild was erroring out, but he didn't know that because of
the use of -push. Specific details
>It is MUCH faster than trying to feed the message to Postfix
>(aka Sendmail) via SMTP/587 because in the case of just piping the
>message, Postfix doesn't make me wait until it has done the
>DNS lookups it thinks it needs to do in order to process
>the message.
I think something is wrong with
Hi kre,
> The need is less common today, than it once was, since more and more
> e-mail is direct from sender's MTA to recipient's - but back when more
> mail relaying was done (when there was more than just "the internet")
> the queue-id along with the transfer timestamp
I grovel around MTA
I had greylisting turned on and my postfix wasn’t setup quite right so
when there was a long cc list, there was a long wait. -push was the
easiest way to fix the delay problem!
> On Jul 10, 2019, at 1:42 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> Hi Ronald,
>
>> It is MUCH faster than trying to feed the
Hi Ronald,
> It is MUCH faster than trying to feed the message to Postfix (aka
> Sendmail) via SMTP/587 because in the case of just piping the message,
> Postfix doesn't make me wait until it has done the DNS lookups it
> thinks it needs to do in order to process the message.
I have send(1)
>I agree with that, and even when ifdef's are added, they should be
>positive, not double negative, so
> #ifndef NOSYSLOG
>is just perferse,
Of course it is. As I mentioned in my previous message...
> #ifdef USE_SYSLOG
>would work just as well (it does mean the name needs to be
>>Is there any interest in adding an improved version of this to the code
>>base?
>
>So ... maybe? But, some thoughts.
Thank you (and everyone else!) for taking the time to reply to this.
Before I say anything else, I never meant to ask for my patch to be
incorporated as-is -- I know there are
On Jul 9, 2019, at 5:56 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message <20190710004749.89c1b163...@pb-smtp1.pobox.com>,
> Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
>> If I could make sendmail/pipe punch the user in the face every time a
>> message was sent using it...
>
> Please don't. I'm using it.
>
> It is
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> If I could make sendmail/pipe punch the user in the face every time a
>> message was sent using it...
> Please don't. I'm using it.
> It is MUCH faster than trying to feed the message to Postfix
> (aka Sendmail) via SMTP/587 because in the case
In message <20190710004749.89c1b163...@pb-smtp1.pobox.com>,
Ken Hornstein wrote:
>If I could make sendmail/pipe punch the user in the face every time a
>message was sent using it...
Please don't. I'm using it.
It is MUCH faster than trying to feed the message to Postfix
(aka Sendmail) via
Date:Tue, 09 Jul 2019 19:39:08 -0400
From:Ken Hornstein
Message-ID: <20190709233912.db2aa73...@pb-smtp20.pobox.com>
| - We don't, in general, want to have any more #ifdefs in the code unless
| they are completely unavoidable
I agree with that, and even when
>Could we log the entire result, and let the post hook take care of the
>various queue formats?
That was what I suggested. Clearly nmh shouldn't be in the business of
figuring out what (if any) the queue identifier is based on the SMTP
DATA response message.
>> I am neutral about this being
Ken Hornstein wrote:
> - It is not clear to me that you can state with certainly that the
> 250 response code will contain the queue identifier (that is, in
> fact, not a concept that appears anywhere that I can find in the SMTP
> RFCs). As a practical matter I've never had to
On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 17:43:06 -0400, Steven Winikoff said:
> sm_reply.length = rp - sm_reply.text;
> sm_reply.text[sm_reply.length] = 0;
> +#ifndef NOSYSLOG
> +if (strncmp(sm_reply.text, "OK id=", 6) == 0)
> +{
This is highly dependent on the remote MTA.
Google, for
>Is there any interest in adding an improved version of this to the code
>base?
So ... maybe? But, some thoughts.
- We don't, in general, want to have any more #ifdefs in the code unless
they are completely unavoidable (e.g., operating system differences or
optional third-party libraries
I recently modified my configuration for nmh-1.7.1 to connect directly to
my ISP's sendmail, rather than going through sendmail on my desktop Linux
system.
This works perfectly, but as a side effect I lost all logging of outgoing
messages. This isn't the end of the world, but it's a pain because
30 matches
Mail list logo
