Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:22:47PM -0500, Angus March wrote:
>
>
>> And finally, what was sent to the standard error:
>> sendmail: warning: -f option specified malformed sender: angus uducat.com
>> sendmail: fatal: No recipient addresses found in message header
>>
Stan Hoeppner:
> Angus March put forth on 11/10/2009 12:22 PM:
>
> > The Postfix I'm using is the rpm that comes with SLE 10:
> > postfix-2.2.9-10.23. If what you say is correct, then this sendmail
> > operation is buggy.
>
> Probably unrelated to your current issue, but you should consider
> upg
Angus March:
> > If there is an ERROR, the Postfix sendmail command will NOT enqueue
> > the message, and it will return a non-zero exit status code as
> > defined in /usr/include/sysexits.h.
> sendmail: fatal: No recipient addresses found in message header
That is an ERROR. The Postfix sendmail
Angus March put forth on 11/10/2009 12:22 PM:
> The Postfix I'm using is the rpm that comes with SLE 10:
> postfix-2.2.9-10.23. If what you say is correct, then this sendmail
> operation is buggy.
Probably unrelated to your current issue, but you should consider
upgrading your Postfix to at least
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:22:47PM -0500, Angus March wrote:
> And finally, what was sent to the standard error:
> sendmail: warning: -f option specified malformed sender: angus uducat.com
> sendmail: fatal: No recipient addresses found in message header
This exits with EX_USAGE. Either you are n
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Angus March:
>
>>> No, that was a WARNING.
>>>
>>> warning: -f option specified malformed sender
>>>
>>> If there is an ERROR, the Postfix sendmail command will NOT enqueue
>>> the message, and it will return a non-zero exit status code as
>>> defined in /usr/include/s
Angus March:
> > If sendmail(1) is unable to en-queue a message, it reports an error.
> > In all other cases (message en-queued), error reporting is asynchronous.
> >
> Well, that's the problem here. There was no bounce, obviously, since
> the sender was bogus, and sendmail's return value (a
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:10AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
>
>
>> I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
>> (after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
>> diligently checks the status v
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:54:43AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
> > If sendmail(1) is unable to en-queue a message, it reports an error.
> > In all other cases (message en-queued), error reporting is asynchronous.
>
> Well, that's the problem here. There was no bounce, obviously, since
> the sender w
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:10AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
>
>
>> I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
>> (after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
>> diligently checks the status value returned by sendma
Angus March:
> I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
> (after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
> diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I tried to
> sabotage an e-mail by inserting a sender that is un-RFC822, and th
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:54:10AM -0500, Angus March wrote:
> I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
> (after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
> diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I tried to
> sabotage an e-mai
I have a C program that calls Postfix's sendmail front-end using execv()
(after calling fork()). I also have a waitpid() on the process, which
diligently checks the status value returned by sendmail. I tried to
sabotage an e-mail by inserting a sender that is un-RFC822, and there
were errors sent
13 matches
Mail list logo
