Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2024-09-26, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like your network is broken. Try this:
>>>
>>>     $ telnet smtp.gmail.com 587
>>>     Trying 209.85.145.109...
>>>     Connected to smtp.gmail.com.
>>>     Escape character is '^]'.
>>>     220 smtp.gmail.com ESMTP 8926c6da1cb9f-4d888860978sm58959173.69 - gsmtp
>>>
>>> Note: Port 587 is for plaintext connection and then shifting into TLS
>>> mode with the starttls command.  When configuring msmtp:
>>>
>>>     port 587
>>>     tls on
>>>     tls-starttls on
>>> or
>>>     port 465
>>>     tls on
>>>     tls-starttls off
>>>
>>> Port 465 starts using TLS immediately
>>>
>>> [...]
>> Which package do I need for that telnet?  I see a few packages with that
>> name. 
> Any of them should work.  I use net-misc/netkit-telnetd.  It will also
> install a telnet daemon, but it won't enbale it

I have -1 in make.conf so whatever I install will be depcleaned later. 
Anyway, I installed the one you mentioned and got this. 


root@Gentoo-1 / # telnet smtp.gmail.com 587
Trying 142.251.116.108...
Trying 2607:f8b0:4023:1000::6c...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Network is unreachable
root@Gentoo-1 / #


Can't connect.  Well, that explains a lot.  It can't reach anything to
log into.  It looks like it is trying both IPv4 and v6.  So, I used
ping.  It works there. 


root@Gentoo-1 / # ping smtp.gmail.com
PING smtp.gmail.com (142.250.115.108) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from rq-in-f108.1e100.net (142.250.115.108): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53
time=32.1 ms
64 bytes from rq-in-f108.1e100.net (142.250.115.108): icmp_seq=2 ttl=53
time=45.0 ms
64 bytes from rq-in-f108.1e100.net (142.250.115.108): icmp_seq=3 ttl=53
time=39.3 ms
^C
--- smtp.gmail.com ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 32.062/38.776/45.017/5.299 ms
root@Gentoo-1 / # ping 142.251.116.108
PING 142.251.116.108 (142.251.116.108) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 142.251.116.108: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=30.4 ms
64 bytes from 142.251.116.108: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=56.0 ms
64 bytes from 142.251.116.108: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=30.6 ms
^C
--- 142.251.116.108 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 30.351/38.988/56.049/12.063 ms
root@Gentoo-1 / #


What silly boo boo did I make this time???? 


>> I am connected through a VPN but Seamonkey works fine.  I can check and
>> send email there,
> Do you mean can send email via Gmail's SMTP server using Seamonkey?
>
> How are the SMTP server settings configured in Seamonkey?
>
> Is it using Oauth2 or an app password?

I checked,  It is using Oauth2.  I had to change it a good while back
but I think SMART could still send emails for a while after that. 
Seamonkey wouldn't fetch or send emails tho until I changed to the Oauth
thing.  Also, it stopped autofetching emails with that too.  I used to
have it set to check for new messages like every 20 minutes.  I have to
manually check since the change.  Annoying as heck. 

The first time I used the app password was when I was following guides
on how to set up email for SMART when I realized it wasn't working on my
new rig.  I don't use it on anything else.  I didn't realize it wasn't
working on the old rig either. 


>> hence this thread.  I figure I got something set up wrong after a
>> Gmail change.  Sort of stupid to make something so secure you can't
>> use it.  It's like buying a computer and saying the only way to
>> secure it is to keep it turned off.  :/ 
> Well, that last part is true, as long as you keep it in a locked room.
>
> I just did a quick test, and sending via smtp.gmail.com using an app
> password worked fine from mutt.  I don't have msmtp set up at the
> moment.
>

That is true but why buy one if you can't run it?  LOL  This is yet
another reason I want to switch from Gmail.  They nothing but nosy
anyway.  I think it is common knowledge that they scan all emails and
use the info for various things, including ads, which I block by the way. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Reply via email to