|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > December 2005 > unable to send mail from UNIX
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
unable to send mail from UNIX
|
|
| prachar@gmail.com 2005-11-24, 5:54 pm |
| Hi,
I own mac OSX. I am learing scripting language using bash. I tried to
send a sample mail to my yahoo and gmail account using mail and mailx,
but I could not.
Here is the command that I used.
mailx -s "Subject" "recei...@yahoo.com" < output.txt
Do I have to configure these programs before I can send emails?
thanks for the help
Papu
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-11-24, 5:54 pm |
| On 24 Nov 2005 12:02:39 -0800, prachar@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I own mac OSX. I am learing scripting language using bash. I tried to
> send a sample mail to my yahoo and gmail account using mail and mailx,
> but I could not.
>
> Here is the command that I used.
> mailx -s "Subject" "recei...@yahoo.com" < output.txt
>
> Do I have to configure these programs before I can send emails?
Your mail client, mailx will automagically send the mail to your Mail
Transport Agent (MTA). Your MTA needs to be configured to know what
the relayhost is to pass on mail which is not to be delivered to someone
on your current node.
Sorry I do not know MAC.
Possible MTAs qmail, postfix, sendmail, exim
| |
| Michael Vilain 2005-11-24, 5:54 pm |
| In article <slrndoc7vm.4oa.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid>,
Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2005 12:02:39 -0800, prachar@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Your mail client, mailx will automagically send the mail to your Mail
> Transport Agent (MTA). Your MTA needs to be configured to know what
> the relayhost is to pass on mail which is not to be delivered to someone
> on your current node.
>
> Sorry I do not know MAC.
> Possible MTAs qmail, postfix, sendmail, exim
I have MacOS X 10.3 which uses postfix. 10.2 used sendmail as
installed. sendmail required permissions be repaired on /var in order
to work right. postfix just seems to work with the default settings.
It uses configuration info from somewhere other than
/etc/postfix/main.cf (read this file if you want to change anything) and
forwards it to the host in the MX record of the domain it's addressed
to. Most domains won't allow this and only accept email from known
hosts. My guess is your MacOS X box would need a static IP address and
DNS entry to run a mail server. Many of the major ISP's won't allow
that--ymmv.
--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-11-24, 5:54 pm |
| In article <vilain-F01A08.12585424112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Michael Vilain <vilain@spamcop.net> wrote:
>In article <slrndoc7vm.4oa.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid>,
> Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
[ snip ]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I have MacOS X 10.3 which uses postfix. 10.2 used sendmail as
>installed. sendmail required permissions be repaired on /var in order
>to work right. postfix just seems to work with the default settings.
>It uses configuration info from somewhere other than
>/etc/postfix/main.cf (read this file if you want to change anything) and
>forwards it to the host in the MX record of the domain it's addressed
>to. Most domains won't allow this and only accept email from known
>hosts. My guess is your MacOS X box would need a static IP address and
>DNS entry to run a mail server. Many of the major ISP's won't allow
>that--ymmv.
>
I don't know about postfix, but sendmail can be configured to ....
I'm not sure about the proper terminology, something along the
lines of "to send outgoing mail via your ISP's mail server" -- the
configuration you want when you connect to the 'Net via an ISP and not
necessarily with a static IP address. Look in /etc/mail/sendmail.cf,
in particular the comments about SMART_HOST (which is what you need to
set) and the comments at the top (how to make the change take effect).
My guess is that postfix has this capability as well.
You may have to make additional changes in order for the return
address on your messages to be something sensible (e.g., you@isp.com).
Some of these can be made at the level of the MUA (mail user agent --
"mailx" in your example).
Someone else can provide details; I just wanted to comment that you
probably do *not* need a static IPA in order to send and receive mail.
My experience is only with Linux, not Mac OS X, but I suspect that
sendmail is (more or less) sendmail ....
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
|
| ok great!
I went to the sendmail.org website looking for instruction, but didnt
find anything helpful. Some of the websites do have instructions on how
to use sendmail but I was totally confused by them.
I have suse 9.1 linux and I would like it if you can give me
instruction on how to configure sendmail on it.
The reason why I began to work on this is my external ip address keeps
changing once in three hours and I would like to know what it is by
sending email to my mail account. I have a script that can get the ip
address. If only I can email it.
The next task would be to figure out how to run a script by sending an
email with some "instuctions"
Papu
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| On 24 Nov 2005 16:04:15 -0800, papu wrote:
>
> I have suse 9.1 linux and I would like it if you can give me
> instruction on how to configure sendmail on it.
Most ISP do not want you running any servers. I have my
firewall blocking all inbound attempts so not to violate the
Acceptable Use Policy.
Postfix is real easy to set up on a box which is getting dhcp ip from
my ISP. here are my LAN and WAN settings.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
slrnd1uebd.ult.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid in the message id box
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| In article <1132877055.649452.133090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
papu <prachar@gmail.com> wrote:
>ok great!
First an aside:
Next time please leave in enough context for us to know who you're
replying to. Not everyone reads news from Google's interface, and
some newsreaders don't make it obvious (without some extra trouble)
which post you're replying to. With the extra trouble, it seems
that it's mine ....
(Google's interface doesn't make it obvious how to quote from the
post to which you're replying, but it's possible. I think it's
something about "Show Options" ....)
>
>I went to the sendmail.org website looking for instruction, but didnt
>find anything helpful. Some of the websites do have instructions on how
>to use sendmail but I was totally confused by them.
>
>I have suse 9.1 linux and I would like it if you can give me
>instruction on how to configure sendmail on it.
>
Sendmail is a big complicated program, and I am far from an expert on
it. What I can tell you is what I did on a Fedora Core 4 system. It
may or may not be helpful in your situation.
In /etc/mail/sendmail.mc, I followed the instructions about
uncommenting and changing the line containing "SMART_HOST". I also
added my username to /etc/mail/trusted-users. I then followed the
instructions in /etc/mail/sendmail.mc for regenerating the sendmail
configuration files, and (probably -- hard to remember) restarted
sendmail.
I also made some changes in my mail-reading program's configuration
files, so mail would appear to come from me@my-isp.com rather than
from me-local@local.localdomain. I can tell you what to change for
mutt, but that doesn't help if you use another program. (It was
after I made this change that I discovered that I probably needed to
add something to that trusted-users file, because otherwise sendmail
complains.)
Hope this helps.
>
>The reason why I began to work on this is my external ip address keeps
>changing once in three hours and I would like to know what it is by
>sending email to my mail account. I have a script that can get the ip
>address. If only I can email it.
>
>The next task would be to figure out how to run a script by sending an
>email with some "instuctions"
>
You might want to read up, or ask, about whether there's a potential
security risk in setting up something whereby incoming e-mail triggers
the running of scripts. I vaguely remember hearing something ....
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| In article <slrndoclt2.6jr.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid>,
Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>On 24 Nov 2005 16:04:15 -0800, papu wrote:
>
>Most ISP do not want you running any servers. I have my
>firewall blocking all inbound attempts so not to violate the
>Acceptable Use Policy.
>
Um, does setting up sendmail so that outgoing mail goes to the ISP's
mail server (which is what I think the OP wants) constitute "running
a server"? I wouldn't have thought so. How is this different from
running any other MTA? Or maybe I don't understand what the OP wants.
>
>Postfix is real easy to set up on a box which is getting dhcp ip from
>my ISP. here are my LAN and WAN settings.
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>slrnd1uebd.ult.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid in the message id box
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-11-24, 8:49 pm |
| On 25 Nov 2005 00:56:21 GMT, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> Um, does setting up sendmail so that outgoing mail goes to the ISP's
> mail server (which is what I think the OP wants) constitute "running
> a server"? I wouldn't have thought so.
Generally speaking and ignoring a firewall response, anything responding
to inbound connection could be considered a server from the ISP's point of view.
I just mentioned it so the OP would consider blocking inbound
connections and would not be running an open relay for some
cracker/spammer.
> How is this different from
> running any other MTA? Or maybe I don't understand what the OP wants.
Any MTA will work for what the OP asked for.
I thought recent Suse distributions had postfix as default MTA.
If no postfix docs installed, they can be found here
http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html
Now he might run into trouble sending to other Domains even through
his ISP mail server.
Lots of postmasters have set their filters to verify that the From
addresses is a valid email address. I have to change bittwister@wb.home.invalid
to my_addy@hotmail.com via my MTA (postfix).
| |
| Robert Melson 2005-11-25, 2:50 am |
| In article <1132862559.690789.307940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
prachar@gmail.com writes:
> Hi,
> I own mac OSX. I am learing scripting language using bash. I tried to
> send a sample mail to my yahoo and gmail account using mail and mailx,
> but I could not.
>
> Here is the command that I used.
> mailx -s "Subject" "recei...@yahoo.com" < output.txt
>
> Do I have to configure these programs before I can send emails?
>
> thanks for the help
>
> Papu
>
You would probably get better results by posting your question on
comp.mail.sendmail.
Basically, however, you want to add lines like the following to your sendmail.mc
file:
MASQUERADE_AS(`yourISP.com')
MASQUERADE_DOMAIN(`your-internal.domain.home')
FEATURE(allmasquerade)
FEATURE(masquerade_entire_domain)
FEATURE(masquerade_envelope)
define(*`confDOMAIN_NAME',`your-internal..domain.home')
define(RELAY_HOST, smtp:mail.yourISP.net)
define(SMART_HOST, smtp:mail.yourISP.net)
define(RELAY_MAILER, TCP)
The above lines ARE NOT guaranteed to work on your system - they do on mine,
with appropriate changes where indicated. The Sendmail FAQ and the on-line
documentation for whatever version of Sendmail you have installed should
explain the above .mc file entries.
HTH,
Bob Melson
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." Thomas Reed
-----
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-11-25, 7:49 am |
| On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:17:59 -0600, Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2005 12:02:39 -0800, prachar@gmail.com wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
Maybe. What does mailq say? Where's your mail going? We can play
port-25 games if we need to. Also, Yahoo doesn't accept SMTP traffic
from many clients, you may have to ask for that to work.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Your mail client, mailx will automagically send the mail to your Mail
> Transport Agent (MTA). Your MTA needs to be configured to know what
> the relayhost is to pass on mail which is not to be delivered to someone
> on your current node.
Or, as I suspect, his relayhost doesn't relay for him, because most
people don't use it, and most of the time it's a spam conduit.
> Sorry I do not know MAC.
MAC is something entirely different. Mac OSX is FreeBSD with an Apple
GUI, for the purposes of any Unix question.
> Possible MTAs qmail, postfix, sendmail, exim
It's got sendmail, and works fine out of the box. I'd bet a drink of
your choice that it's Yahoo, which we can verify by connecting to 25
manually and seeing the "relaying denied" message.
Dave Hinz
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-11-25, 7:49 am |
| On 24 Nov 2005 16:04:15 -0800, papu <prachar@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok great!
>
> I went to the sendmail.org website looking for instruction, but didnt
> find anything helpful.
I nominate this for "understatement of the year award".
| |
|
| Begin <3uogkcF12d4vbU5@individual.net>
On 2005-11-25, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> MAC is something entirely different. Mac OSX is FreeBSD with an Apple
> GUI, for the purposes of any Unix question.
Please don't perpetuate this myth. It causes newbies with questions
about macosx in cubfm that people there don't know how to answer.
Altough apple took (amongst others) FreeBSD code and based darwin on
it, but only loosely, and that isn't quite the same as what you say.
For example, apple itself then says it also used the mach kernel, which
simply is not used at all in FreeBSD. That is perhaps the most striking
core example I can give, but it certainly isn't the only difference.
(Netinfo part of the gui? I think not. And so on.)
I'm not unhappy about apple that they took a stable codebase to build
their OS on, I think it is sound engineering. But I do wish people would
be less shallow and simplistic in their assumptions about it. If you
don't believe me, I encourage you to take the FreeBSD handbook[1] and
a macintosh running macosx, and figure out how much of what is in the
handbook actually practically applies to macosx. I'd love to hear your
findings.
[1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook
Or for kicks do the same with the updated daemon book.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-11-25, 5:53 pm |
| On 25 Nov 2005 13:57:17 GMT, jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
> Begin <3uogkcF12d4vbU5@individual.net>
> On 2005-11-25, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> Please don't perpetuate this myth. It causes newbies with questions
> about macosx in cubfm that people there don't know how to answer.
What, specifically, do you disagree with, _in this context_? And "myth"
implies it's wrong. Now you're going to tell me how some esoteric
whatever is subtly different, which, as I said, isn't relevant.
> Altough apple took (amongst others) FreeBSD code and based darwin on
> it, but only loosely, and that isn't quite the same as what you say.
> For example, apple itself then says it also used the mach kernel, which
> simply is not used at all in FreeBSD. That is perhaps the most striking
> core example I can give, but it certainly isn't the only difference.
> (Netinfo part of the gui? I think not. And so on.)
Any distro can add to, or change, what it's distributed with. Doesn't
change the basic fact that I'm sitting at a FreeBSD box at the moment,
with an Apple GUI.
Tell me, does Sendmail know or care what it's on? For this question,
then, does it matter if it's a Mach kernel, a wazzit kernel, or a
floobydust kernel? No. This is an MTA question, not a kernel
architecture question. FOR THE CONTECT OF THE QUESTION, my description
is accurate enough.
> But I do wish people would
> be less shallow and simplistic in their assumptions about it. If you
> don't believe me, I encourage you to take the FreeBSD handbook[1] and
> a macintosh running macosx, and figure out how much of what is in the
> handbook actually practically applies to macosx. I'd love to hear your
> findings.
My findings are that you're a pompous, condescending person, jumping in
with a non-helpful answer on a point unrelated to the question making a
distinction that doesn't matter at all in this context.
We've _had_ the "This OS isn't Unix-ish enough to merit inclusion here"
troll, and he went away. Another one isn't welcome.
| |
|
| Begin <3uot2nF12e9b7U3@individual.net>
On 2005-11-25, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2005 13:57:17 GMT, jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
>
> What, specifically, do you disagree with, _in this context_?
The context you gave is ``for the purposes of any Unix question''. That
is at least what I see a couple of lines up. You can tell me that I'm
wrong but then I would beg of you to show me, for I don't see how.
To answer your question: I think it is accurately summed up in my
request right above your question, namely that people who don't know any
better than to equate macosx with FreeBSD --because even apple only ever
said the former is ``based on'' the latter, not ``equates plus gui'', as
well as on a couple of other collections of code free and proprietary--,
tend to ask questions in cubfm that are met by at best loose handwaving
and at worst a worse than useless answer.
> And "myth" implies it's wrong. Now you're going to tell me how some
> esoteric whatever is subtly different, which, as I said, isn't
> relevant.
It's not irrelevant in the context you yourself gave. My experience in
cubfm shows that and indeed most, if not all, questions there that are
from people using macosx don't get more than handwaving as an answer.
The esoteric whatever was simply one example out of too many to mention,
to illustrate my point. I do think that even with only the two esoteric
whatevers mentioned, I showed you wrong in the context you yourself
gave. If you disagree, I invite you to demonstrate how I am mistaken,
here or in email, as you prefer.
[snip]
> Any distro can add to, or change, what it's distributed with.
If what you saying were true, then NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSD/OS, and even
juniper's junos would all also count as being some sort of FreeBSD.
Except that the distribution model as used in the linux world, of
one kernel, a lot of utilities of various flavours, and a lot of
distribution-specific glue, does not apply in the *BSD world, despite
the IMAO rather misguided attempts by for example debian to try and
apply their glue to various BSDs anyway.
> Doesn't change the basic fact that I'm sitting at a FreeBSD box at the
> moment, with an Apple GUI.
I disagree. And I already explained why. But by all means, leave your
fingers in your ears, if you insist.
> Tell me, does Sendmail know or care what it's on?
By that reasoning, does it then make any sense at all to pick two random
unix flavours and equating them, instead of saying that sendmail does
not care (mostly) what unix[tm]-like OS it runs on?
If it did make sense, then why do we not have just one unix group,
named comp.unix? Why then do we even bother with a separate group for
sendmail? Surely sendmail doesn't care and it'll fit right in with the
rest of the comp.unix discussion, it has been on most unices for so
long nobody knows it is a separate and replaceable subsystem, anyway.
> For this question, then, does it matter if it's a Mach kernel, a
> wazzit kernel, or a floobydust kernel? No. This is an MTA question,
> not a kernel architecture question. FOR THE CONTECT OF THE QUESTION,
> my description is accurate enough.
Then don't break out of the context of the original question by expandig
it to ``any Unix question''. You did that, not I.
[snip]
> My findings are that you're a pompous, condescending person,
I can't really be bothered by your opinions of my person, except maybe
that here you don't get extra points for ad hominem attacks.
> jumping in with a non-helpful answer on a point unrelated to the
> question making a distinction that doesn't matter at all in this
> context.
Actually, I did no such thing. I made a request.
> We've _had_ the "This OS isn't Unix-ish enough to merit inclusion here"
> troll, and he went away. Another one isn't welcome.
I did not mean to say or imply that macosx cannot be discussed in
comp.unix.admin. I expressed this by referring to the newsgroup
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, but admittedly by mentioning it as
``cubfm''. If that was too opaque a reference for you, then I offer
you my apologies for confusing you.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.
| |
| base60 2005-11-25, 5:53 pm |
| prachar@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> I own mac OSX. I am learing scripting language using bash. I tried to
> send a sample mail to my yahoo and gmail account using mail and mailx,
> but I could not.
>
> Here is the command that I used.
> mailx -s "Subject" "recei...@yahoo.com" < output.txt
>
> Do I have to configure these programs before I can send emails?
You'd probably get a lot better response if you'd also include
error/log file messages related to the attempt.
| |
| blmblm@myrealbox.com 2005-11-25, 8:50 pm |
| In article <slrndocqae.7nr.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid>,
Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>On 25 Nov 2005 00:56:21 GMT, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>
>
>Generally speaking and ignoring a firewall response, anything responding
>to inbound connection could be considered a server from the ISP's point of view.
>
>I just mentioned it so the OP would consider blocking inbound
>connections and would not be running an open relay for some
>cracker/spammer.
Ah. Okay. I was focusing on outgoing mail, which seemed to be the
OP's most pressing question.
>
>Any MTA will work for what the OP asked for.
>
[ snip ]
--
| B. L. Massingill
| ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-11-26, 5:50 pm |
| On 25 Nov 2005 18:07:55 GMT, jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it.invalid> wrote:
> Begin <3uot2nF12e9b7U3@individual.net>
> On 2005-11-25, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> The context you gave is ``for the purposes of any Unix question''. That
> is at least what I see a couple of lines up. You can tell me that I'm
> wrong but then I would beg of you to show me, for I don't see how.
Yeah, OK, so if you're a "memorize how to do things per OS varient",
then that might not work for you. If you're a "understand how things
work" kind of person, then I'd say my assessment is right on.
> To answer your question: I think it is accurately summed up in my
> request right above your question, namely that people who don't know any
> better than to equate macosx with FreeBSD --because even apple only ever
> said the former is ``based on'' the latter, not ``equates plus gui'', as
> well as on a couple of other collections of code free and proprietary--,
> tend to ask questions in cubfm that are met by at best loose handwaving
> and at worst a worse than useless answer.
Yeah, like I said. For the purposes of the guy's question, it doesn't
matter what esoteric subtlety it is you're going on and on about. His
upstream is blocking relaying. Hell, even a 'doze box would fail to
send mail when your upstream won't allow relaying, right?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It's not irrelevant in the context you yourself gave. My experience in
> cubfm
Sorry, what's this "cubfm" to which you refer? Let's see..crossposts?
Nope, not crossposted to anywhere else. Presumably a place, maybe a
froup name. Can't be sussed to google for it.
> shows that and indeed most, if not all, questions there that are
> from people using macosx don't get more than handwaving as an answer.
It's just another Unix. He asked about email in a Unix group. it's a
general Unix question. Has nothing to do with the fact that he's on
Apple hardware, or what kernel he's running, or in this case even which
MTA he's using. A _helpful_ response would be to talk the guy through
connecting to port 25 at his upstream and the dialog there, to verify
that that's what's happening. I haven't noticed a helpful message from
you yet, maybe that's elsewhere in the thread. Somehow I don't think
so.
> The esoteric whatever was simply one example out of too many to mention,
> to illustrate my point. I do think that even with only the two esoteric
> whatevers mentioned, I showed you wrong in the context you yourself
> gave. If you disagree, I invite you to demonstrate how I am mistaken,
> here or in email, as you prefer.
I have no interest in having a conversation with you on this or any
other topic.
>
> If what you saying were true, then NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSD/OS, and even
> juniper's junos would all also count as being some sort of FreeBSD.
Don't presume to speak for me; you're clearly not qualified to do so.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I disagree. And I already explained why. But by all means, leave your
> fingers in your ears, if you insist.
It's not that I don't _hear_ you, it's that I don't _agree with_ you.
That's one of those subtle differences again, I suppose. But if talking
louder makes you happy, by all means do go on and on and on.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> By that reasoning, does it then make any sense at all to pick two random
> unix flavours and equating them, instead of saying that sendmail does
> not care (mostly) what unix[tm]-like OS it runs on?
You (intentionally) miss my point.
> If it did make sense, then why do we not have just one unix group,
> named comp.unix? Why then do we even bother with a separate group for
> sendmail? Surely sendmail doesn't care and it'll fit right in with the
> rest of the comp.unix discussion, it has been on most unices for so
> long nobody knows it is a separate and replaceable subsystem, anyway.
Sendmail neither knows nor cares what flavor of Unix it's installed on.
You seem to be agreeing with me or something.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Then don't break out of the context of the original question by expandig
> it to ``any Unix question''. You did that, not I.
So, you _are_ a memorizer instead of an understander. Thanks for
clearing that up. That, or you're playing word games, or both. Hard to
care.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I did not mean to say or imply that macosx cannot be discussed in
> comp.unix.admin. I expressed this by referring to the newsgroup
> comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, but admittedly by mentioning it as
> ``cubfm''. If that was too opaque a reference for you, then I offer
> you my apologies for confusing you.
My, condescending and arrogant too. Buh-bye.
<plonk>
| |
|
| Hi base60,
I didn't get any error message.
mailx -s "sub" "receiver@gmail.com"
how are you.
..
EOT
the first three lines I typed, EOT was the response.
Papu
| |
| Timothy J. Bogart 2005-11-26, 8:48 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
<snip>
> We've _had_ the "This OS isn't Unix-ish enough to merit inclusion here"
> troll, and he went away. Another one isn't welcome.
>
>
<grin>
I was just thinking about him the other day ....
| |
| Robert Melson 2005-11-27, 2:50 am |
| In article <11oi3me4smgks56@corp.supernews.com>,
"Timothy J. Bogart" <tbogart@frii.net> writes:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> <grin>
>
> I was just thinking about him the other day ....
Shhhh! Maybe if we keep quiet he won't find us again.
Bob Melson
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." Thomas Reed
-----
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-11-27, 2:50 am |
| On 26 Nov 2005 16:33:37 -0800, papu wrote:
> Hi base60,
>
> I didn't get any error message.
>
> mailx -s "sub" "receiver@gmail.com"
> how are you.
> .
> EOT
>
> the first three lines I typed, EOT was the response.
I would put the data to send into a file and mail it
cat > x.txt << EOD
whatever
asdf
asf
EOD
mailx -s "Whatever" someone@wherever < x.txt
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-11-27, 2:50 am |
| On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 03:23:58 GMT, Robert Melson <melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote:
> In article <11oi3me4smgks56@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Timothy J. Bogart" <tbogart@frii.net> writes:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Shhhh! Maybe if we keep quiet he won't find us again.
Place isn't the same without him around, that's for sure. If I liked
the guy, I might find his sudden and prolonged absence to be worrying.
Dave "not worried...at all..." Hinz
| |
| base60 2005-11-27, 5:53 pm |
| papu wrote:
> Hi base60,
>
> I didn't get any error message.
>
> mailx -s "sub" "receiver@gmail.com"
> how are you.
OK, so what was in your log files regarding the message?
| |
|
| Hi all,
I have appended the result of postconf -n. I think my port 25 is
blocked by the isp. so i have used smtp.gmail.com:587. Still I am
unable to send email using postfix.
alias_database = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix
debug_peer_level = 2
inet_interfaces = all
local_recipient_maps =
luser_relay = pradeep
mail_owner = postfix
mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq
manpage_directory = /usr/share/man
message_size_limit = 10240000
mydomain_fallback = localhost
mynetworks_style = subnet
newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases
queue_directory = /private/var/spool/postfix
readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix
relay_domains = smtp.gmail.com:587
relayhost = smtp.gmail.com:587
sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix/examples
sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail
setgid_group = postdrop
smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes
smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd
smtp_sasl_security_options =
smtpd_sender_restrictions = hash:/etc/postfix/access
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
Papu.
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-12-01, 8:55 pm |
| On 1 Dec 2005 13:28:52 -0800, papu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have appended the result of postconf -n. I think my port 25 is
> blocked by the isp. so i have used smtp.gmail.com:587. Still I am
> unable to send email using postfix.
If you can send an email via your email client, say thunderbird, then
you know the ISP is receiving mail.
Some light reading found here http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html
All I added to main.cf was
# my appended changes to main.cf for my WAN node
default_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
myorigin = comcast.net
mydomain = home.invalid
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost
mynetworks = 192.168.2.0/24, 127.0.0.0/8
relayhost = smtp.comcast.net
relay_domains = $mydomain
inet_interfaces = $myhostname, localhost
smtp_host_lookup = dns, native
#local box users
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
# Receiving from LAN: swap linux users into my ISP email users
# swap out header (from value
sender_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical_sender
# swap out header (to value example root
recipient_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical_recipient
# Sending: swap out email addresses that appear inside messages (From
# and message envelope addresses (from
smtp_generic_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/generic
Here is my postconf -n
alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/lib/postfix
default_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
delay_warning_time = 4h
html_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.2.5/html
inet_interfaces = $myhostname, localhost
mail_owner = postfix
mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq
manpage_directory = /usr/share/man
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost
mydomain = home.invalid
mynetworks = 192.168.2.0/24, 127.0.0.0/8
mynetworks_style = host
myorigin = comcast.net
newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases
owner_request_special = no
queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix
readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.2.5/README_FILES
recipient_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical_recipient
recipient_delimiter = +
relay_domains = $mydomain
relayhost = smtp.comcast.net
sender_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical_sender
sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix
setgid_group = postdrop
smtp_generic_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/generic
smtp_host_lookup = dns, native
smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name ($mail_version) (Mandriva Linux)
smtpd_sasl_path = /etc/postfix/sasl:/usr/lib/sasl2
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 450
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
| |
|
| Hi Bit Twister,
Thanks for your post.
All,
I hope someone there has tiger OSX. I have configured mail.app to send
and receive mails with gmail. I have also configured automator to
automatically check for new emails and a bash script checks for a
specific email and sends me an email if there is one. This is working
fine.
Mail.app uses postfix to send email and cyrus to receive emails. I have
connected my computer to a router and enabled my smtp port 25 on it. I
use port 995 to access smtp:gmail.com. So this seems to be working
fine.
But when i try to send email from command prompt, i don't see any email
being sent. Is there some way I can access the files of mail.app to
send mails from shell script?
thanks.
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-12-02, 5:53 pm |
| On 2 Dec 2005 06:39:18 -0800, papu wrote:
>
> But when i try to send email from command prompt, i don't see any email
> being sent. Is there some way I can access the files of mail.app to
> send mails from shell script?
I would check the postfix log files to see if postfix received the
mail.
On Mandrivalinux they are in /var/log/mail
| |
|
| My mail.log file contains. It looks like post 25 is blocked??.
Dec 2 10:07:21 localhost postfix/master[52]: daemon started -- version
2.1.5
Dec 2 10:09:41 pradeep-mac postfix/pickup[260]: 789828BA341: uid=501
from=<pradeep>
Dec 2 10:09:41 pradeep-mac postfix/cleanup[261]: 789828BA341:
message-id=<20051202150940.789828BA341@pradeep-mac.local>
Dec 2 10:09:41 pradeep-mac postfix/qmgr[264]: 789828BA341:
from=<pradeep@gmail.com>, size=305, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec 2 10:10:12 pradeep-mac postfix/smtp[265]: connect to
gmail-smtp.l.google.com[66.249.83.111]: Operation timed out (port 25)
Dec 2 10:10:42 pradeep-mac postfix/smtp[265]: connect to
gmail-smtp.l.google.com[66.249.83.109]: Operation timed out (port 25)
Dec 2 10:10:42 pradeep-mac postfix/smtp[265]: 789828BA341:
to=<pradeep@obd2.com>, relay=none, delay=62, status=deferred (connect
to gmail-smtp.l.google.com[66.249.83.109]: Operation timed out)
| |
|
| My mail.log file contains. It looks like post 25 is blocked??.
Dec 2 10:07:21 localhost postfix/master[52]: daemon started -- version
2.1.5
Dec 2 10:09:41 pradeep-mac postfix/pickup[260]: 789828BA341: uid=501
from=<pradeep>
Dec 2 10:09:41 pradeep-mac postfix/cleanup[261]: 789828BA341:
message-id=<20051202150940.789828BA341@pradeep-mac.local>
Dec 2 10:09:41 pradeep-mac postfix/qmgr[264]: 789828BA341:
from=<pradeep@gmail.com>, size=305, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec 2 10:10:12 pradeep-mac postfix/smtp[265]: connect to
gmail-smtp.l.google.com[66.249.83.111]: Operation timed out (port 25)
Dec 2 10:10:42 pradeep-mac postfix/smtp[265]: connect to
gmail-smtp.l.google.com[66.249.83.109]: Operation timed out (port 25)
Dec 2 10:10:42 pradeep-mac postfix/smtp[265]: 789828BA341:
to=<pradeep@obd2.com>, relay=none, delay=62, status=deferred (connect
to gmail-smtp.l.google.com[66.249.83.109]: Operation timed out)
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-02, 5:54 pm |
| On 2 Dec 2005 07:25:36 -0800, papu <prachar@gmail.com> wrote:
> My mail.log file contains. It looks like post 25 is blocked??.
Yes. As I seem to recall I suggested a week ago.
| |
|
| Dave,
I have opened by port 25 on the router. probably my ISP has blocked
it. Gmail uses 465 or 587 as outgoing mail server. It uses TLS(SSL)
authentication. So I have been trying to configure postfix to use these
parameters. Any suggestions.
thanks,
Papu.
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-12-02, 5:54 pm |
| On 2 Dec 2005 07:55:02 -0800, papu wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I have opened by port 25 on the router. probably my ISP has blocked
> it. Gmail uses 465 or 587 as outgoing mail server. It uses TLS(SSL)
> authentication. So I have been trying to configure postfix to use these
> parameters. Any suggestions.
have you looked around on http://www.postfix.org/
| |
|
| I have been trying to configure based on the instructions given on the
website below.
http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/1673/
I found this link on postfix.org. I still need to change the default
port 25 to something else which the mail.app seems to do.
| |
| Bit Twister 2005-12-02, 5:54 pm |
| On 2 Dec 2005 08:41:12 -0800, papu wrote:
> I have been trying to configure based on the instructions given on the
> website below.
>
> http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/1673/
How sad. There is a gmail faq via the link I gave.
Also, I would verify I could send through postfix with my ISP before
trying someone elses smtp server.
Lots of smtp servers will not accept connections from a machine if it
does not have a valid MX (I think) record.
That keeps the virus smtp servers from connecting from infected PCs.
Lots will also refuse if the from email address is invalid.
| |
|
| Begin <slrndp0vg5.9b6.BitTwister@wb.home.invalid>
On 2005-12-02, Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
[snip!]
> Lots of smtp servers will not accept connections from a machine if it
> does not have a valid MX (I think) record.
There are people who check whether there's an MX for the sending domain,
but not the sending machine itself: Larger shops separate incoming and
outgoing mail servers. The outgoing mail servers then do not accept
incoming mail and so there is no use for them to have MX records.
Publishing which servers ought to be sending mail from your domain can
be done through SPF TXT records, altough their effectiveness so far
isn't as good as might be hoped.
What is a useful and often done is to check for existing rDNS. One
can then crack down further on that by requiring matching reverse and
forward entries. One can also extend that check to the HELO/EHLO string.
> That keeps the virus smtp servers from connecting from infected PCs.
> Lots will also refuse if the from email address is invalid.
Or if the IP is listed in a blacklist. There are now specific lists of
addresses that ``look like'' they are residential and are thus not worth
accepting mail from, as the mail will likely be spam or malware.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.
| |
| base60 2005-12-03, 5:52 pm |
| papu wrote:
> My mail.log file contains. It looks like post 25 is blocked??.
Either you can't get to the remote 25 or it can't get back to you.
Sniffers are quite useful at times.....
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-03, 8:49 pm |
| X-Trace: individual.net qY0aKaLsrnOEP7NCS9rmZgtpW5ogTi7RO+iFSQqQ
ntSC/yD70W
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.unix.admin:120063
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:50:14 GMT, base60 <nobody@whitehouse.com> wrote:
> papu wrote:
>
> Either you can't get to the remote 25 or it can't get back to you.
His ISP doesn't allow port 25 traffic unless the customer requests it.
He has been told this and continues not to acknowledge this advice based
on direct personal experience. No point wasting time with him until he
calls his ISP.
| |
| base60 2005-12-03, 8:49 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:50:14 GMT, base60 <nobody@whitehouse.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> His ISP doesn't allow port 25 traffic unless the customer requests it.
> He has been told this and continues not to acknowledge this advice based
> on direct personal experience. No point wasting time with him until he
> calls his ISP.
If my ISP didn't provide outbound relays as a normal course of business,
I'd look for a new ISP
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-05, 2:49 am |
| On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:46:11 GMT, base60 <nobody@whitehouse.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> If my ISP didn't provide outbound relays as a normal course of business,
> I'd look for a new ISP
Oh, absolutely. But, Ameritech and Yahoo do it fairly frequently on
consumer DSL lines. Theory being, and it's somewhat valid, that Joe
Idiot User won't install antivirus, so by blocking 25, they cut down on
the zombie spamming systems on their domains. Just another way spammers
are screwing it up for the rest of us.
| |
|
| Dave,
I don't want to call my ISP. That is not the solution I am looking
for. That is my last resort.
I want to use port 587 or 465. Mail.app doesn't complain that port 25
is blocked and it uses postfix.
I want to know how to change the default port in postfix to one of
the ports mentioned above. I tried smtp.gmail.com:587 for host,but it
didn't work. My log files showed that postfix was still trying to
access port 25.
Papu.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-06, 6:03 pm |
| On 6 Dec 2005 13:48:43 -0800, papu <prachar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I don't want to call my ISP. That is not the solution I am looking
> for. That is my last resort.
Your choice.
> I want to use port 587 or 465. Mail.app doesn't complain that port 25
> is blocked and it uses postfix.
> I want to know how to change the default port in postfix to one of
> the ports mentioned above. I tried smtp.gmail.com:587 for host,but it
> didn't work. My log files showed that postfix was still trying to
> access port 25.
And what happens when you telnet to port 587 at smtp.gmail.com, exactly,
and give it the standard dialog?
| |
|
| I tried this command below.
telnet smtp.gmail.com 587
The reponse was:
Trying 66.249.83.111...
Connected to gmail-smtp.l.google.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mx.gmail.com ESMTP i11sm975328wxd
It looks like it connected. So port 587 is open. I would like to change
port for postfix.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-07, 5:58 pm |
| On 6 Dec 2005 16:35:08 -0800, papu <prachar@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried this command below.
>
> telnet smtp.gmail.com 587
>
> The reponse was:
>
> Trying 66.249.83.111...
> Connected to gmail-smtp.l.google.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 mx.gmail.com ESMTP i11sm975328wxd
>
> It looks like it connected. So port 587 is open. I would like to change
> port for postfix.
Yes, the port is open. What happens when you give it the dialog to send
an actual message? (google is your friend)
|
|
|
|
|