sendmail?
Is there a way to set up mutt to send mail directly from our dynamic dsl address rather than thru the provider's mail server? Thanks.
Re: sendmail?
On 27. Dec 2008 04:34, zirath wrote: > Is there a way to set up mutt to send mail directly from our dynamic dsl > address rather than thru the provider's mail server? As far as I know: no. Mutt is a MUA (Mail User Agent) what basically means it's responsibility for sending mails ends when it delivers the mail to an external program or your someones mail server who take care of delivering the mail where it belongs to. The task of delivering mails and all tasks arround that (i.e. find out which mailserver is responsible for the destination mail adress, handle responses of these server etc.) is performed by special mailserver software designed for doing exactly that (MTAs, Mail Transport Agents). So you *could* set up such software on your box that does the delivery but you probably wouldn't be happy with this solution as some mail providers do not accept delivery attempts from dynamic ip addresses for spam prevention. Regards, David -- Email. maus.da...@gmail.com Jabber dmj...@jabber.org OpenPGP... 0x316F4BE4670716FD signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: sendmail?
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, David Maus wrote: > So you *could* set up such software on your box that does the > delivery but you probably wouldn't be happy with this solution as some > mail providers do not accept delivery attempts from dynamic ip > addresses for spam prevention. More specifically, it needs a mx record in order to delivery email. I don't think dynamic ip host will provide you a mx record. If you register a domain name, you can setup your own mx records, however if spams were sent, it will be blacklisted. -- regards, GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3 唐詩302 李商隱 瑤池 瑤池阿母綺窗開 黃竹歌聲動地哀 八駿日行三萬里 穆王何事不重來
Re: sendmail?
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 04:34:03AM -0500, zirath wrote: > Is there a way to set up mutt to send mail directly from our dynamic dsl > address rather than thru the provider's mail server? Yes, there is a way. You set up Sendmail or some other MTA to accept mail from mutt. If that is all you do, It probably won't work. Many ISP's block outgoing port 25 traffic and virtually ALL isp's will not accept incoming port 25 traffic from dynamically assigned IP addresses. Because that is where most spam comes from.. To get around that you need to use a service like mailhop from Dyndns.org. Thats what I do. I am on a dynamically assigned IP (comcast cable), and I use Dyndns.orgs services to give myself "real" (SMTP) in and out. As well as using them for dynamic IP tracking so people can get to my web pages. (Describing my web pages as "minimal" is overkill. :-) ) There are some annual charges but they are minimal. Jeff Kinz --
Re: sendmail?
bill lam wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, David Maus wrote: > > So you *could* set up such software on your box that does the > > delivery but you probably wouldn't be happy with this solution as some > > mail providers do not accept delivery attempts from dynamic ip > > addresses for spam prevention. > > More specifically, it needs a mx record in order to delivery email. I > don't think dynamic ip host will provide you a mx record. If you > register a domain name, you can setup your own mx records, however if > spams were sent, it will be blacklisted. This is false; you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. -- Sahil Tandon
Re: sendmail?
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:22:08AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > bill lam wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, David Maus wrote: > > > So you *could* set up such software on your box that does the > > > delivery but you probably wouldn't be happy with this solution as some > > > mail providers do not accept delivery attempts from dynamic ip > > > addresses for spam prevention. > > > > More specifically, it needs a mx record in order to delivery email. I > > don't think dynamic ip host will provide you a mx record. If you > > register a domain name, you can setup your own mx records, however if > > spams were sent, it will be blacklisted. > > This is false; you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. True, but many email systems will no longer accept email that comes from a system/address with no valid MX record. Yet another spam defense technique. As a result, if you don't have an MX record much of your mail may be rejected, so these days having an MX record is "almost" a requirement. Jeff Kinz > --
Re: sendmail?
jk...@kinz.org wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:22:08AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > bill lam wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, David Maus wrote: > > > > So you *could* set up such software on your box that does the > > > > delivery but you probably wouldn't be happy with this solution as some > > > > mail providers do not accept delivery attempts from dynamic ip > > > > addresses for spam prevention. > > > > > > More specifically, it needs a mx record in order to delivery email. I > > > don't think dynamic ip host will provide you a mx record. If you > > > register a domain name, you can setup your own mx records, however if > > > spams were sent, it will be blacklisted. > > > > This is false; you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. > > True, but many email systems will no longer accept email that > comes from a system/address with no valid MX record. Yet another > spam defense technique. As a result, if you don't have an MX > record much of your mail may be rejected, so these days having an > MX record is "almost" a requirement. This is also false. Sending email from a domain without an MX record is perfectly acceptable. And, when you receive email from most major mailers (i.e. gmail), the connecting system is not a valid MX. If a real SMTP client attempts to send email to domainX, it will first look up the MX and try sending there; if there is no MX record, then the mail is directed at the A record. This is all governed by RFCs. Can you give an example of a legitimate SMTP server out there that rejects email based solely on the fact that it comes from a domain with no MX record? I am sure some people do this, but I'd be surprised if it were as prevalent as you suggest. -- Sahil Tandon
Re: sendmail?
On 2008-12-27, Sahil Tandon wrote: > jk...@kinz.org wrote: >> >>> [...] you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. >> >> True, but many email systems will no longer accept email that >> comes from a system/address with no valid MX record. Yet another >> spam defense technique. As a result, if you don't have an MX >> record much of your mail may be rejected, so these days having an >> MX record is "almost" a requirement. > > This is also false. I used to have mail rejected because the sending domain didn't have an MX record. After I set up my MX record, those systems that used to reject mail started to accept mail. > Sending email from a domain without an MX record is perfectly > acceptable. That depends. Some mail servers accept it, soem don't. > And, when you receive email from most major mailers (i.e. > gmail), the connecting system is not a valid MX. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "the connecting system is not a valid MX". The requirement in question is that the sending domain has an MX record -- I don't think it has anything to do with the connecting client machine. > If a real SMTP client attempts to send email to domainX, it > will first look up the MX and try sending there; if there is > no MX record, then the mail is directed at the A record. This > is all governed by RFCs. Can you give an example of a > legitimate SMTP server out there that rejects email based > solely on the fact that it comes from a domain with no MX > record? It used to happen to me regularly, but I don't run my own mail server any more. > I am sure some people do this, but I'd be surprised if it were > as prevalent as you suggest. Back when I ran a mail server, I would have guessed that 5-10% of servers required that the sending domain have an MX record. -- Grant
Re: sendmail?
* jk...@kinz.org [20081227 17:40]: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:22:08AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > bill lam wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, David Maus wrote: > > > > So you *could* set up such software on your box that does the > > > > delivery but you probably wouldn't be happy with this solution as some > > > > mail providers do not accept delivery attempts from dynamic ip > > > > addresses for spam prevention. > > > > > > More specifically, it needs a mx record in order to delivery email. I > > > don't think dynamic ip host will provide you a mx record. If you > > > register a domain name, you can setup your own mx records, however if > > > spams were sent, it will be blacklisted. > > > > This is false; you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. > > True, but many email systems will no longer accept email that > comes from a system/address with no valid MX record. Yet another > spam defense technique. As a result, if you don't have an MX > record much of your mail may be rejected, so these days having an > MX record is "almost" a requirement. I run my own mail server, and used to (note - past tense) use RBL's and everything else I could get my hands on to filter out spam. Most effective thing I've come across *by a mile* is greylisting. That alone stops about 95% of spam before it enters the mail processing on the server. Amavis/Clam/SA handles most of the rest. I use no RBL's at all any more as they far too frequently block legit mail, are too trigger happy blocking large ISP's en-masse and it's a PITA to get anything removed from them. To "require" a MX to point back to the sending host before accepting mail is IMHO disingenious. If it causes legit e-mail to disappear - it's bad. The OP wanted to know how to send mail without using his ISP - msmtp, ssmtp, postfix, exim, sendmail (in increasing complexity to set up) is available. He can use GMail as relay as well for his own domains (requires some setting up, I've not bothered with that so don't know the specifics of *how*). Just my €0.02 -- Anders Rayner-Karlsson All-Round Linux Tinkerer, RHCE and PITA DeLuxe
Re: sendmail?
Anders Rayner-Karlsson wrote: > To "require" a MX to point back to the sending host before accepting > mail is IMHO disingenious. If it causes legit e-mail to disappear - > it's bad. Thank you, this is *precisely* my point. :-) -- Sahil Tandon
Re: sendmail?
Grant Edwards wrote: > > This is also false. > > I used to have mail rejected because the sending domain didn't > have an MX record. After I set up my MX record, those systems > that used to reject mail started to accept mail. This anecdote based on your experience does not mean it is a "requirement" (as suggested by jkinz) to have an MX record in order to send mail to most mailers. > > Sending email from a domain without an MX record is perfectly > > acceptable. > > That depends. Some mail servers accept it, soem don't. Of course. Some mail servers follow most RFCs while many completely ignore them. To state this is a truism and not under discussion. I simply stated the practice of sending email from a domain with no MX record is perfectly acceptable; I should have qualified this with "on most mail systems". > > And, when you receive email from most major mailers (i.e. > > gmail), the connecting system is not a valid MX. > > I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "the connecting system > is not a valid MX". The requirement in question is that the > sending domain has an MX record -- I don't think it has > anything to do with the connecting client machine. jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting client. That client needn't be the MX for the domain from which email is arriving. > Back when I ran a mail server, I would have guessed that 5-10% > of servers required that the sending domain have an MX record. 5-10%. Sounds like the exception rather than the rule or "requirement" :-) -- Sahil Tandon
Have mutt automatically run a script at startup?
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 09:14:02PM EST, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, December 25 at 07:56 PM, quoth Chris Jones:
> >`ls > /tmp/ls`
> >
> >.. in my .muttrc .. and despite an error message to the effect that the
> >command doesn't exist .. it actually works.
>
> The reason it generates the error is because mutt doesn't ignore empty
> strings. Therefore, it's trying to interpret the empty string as if it
> was a command. You can silence the error like so:
>
> set my_junk=`ls > /tmp/ls`
alias al <`ls -1 ~/mail/lists | grep @ |awk -F@ '{print "alias" " " $1 " " "<"
$1 "@" $2 ">"}' > ~/.mutt/lstal`>
source /home/gavron/.mutt/lstal
.. silently works also.
:-)
Thanks!
CJ
Re: sendmail?
Grant Edwards wrote: On 2008-12-27, Sahil Tandon wrote: jk...@kinz.org wrote: [...] you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. True, but many email systems will no longer accept email that comes from a system/address with no valid MX record. Yet another spam defense technique. As a result, if you don't have an MX record much of your mail may be rejected, so these days having an MX record is "almost" a requirement. This is also false. I used to have mail rejected because the sending domain didn't have an MX record. After I set up my MX record, those systems that used to reject mail started to accept mail. Sending email from a domain without an MX record is perfectly acceptable. That depends. Some mail servers accept it, soem don't. And, when you receive email from most major mailers (i.e. gmail), the connecting system is not a valid MX. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "the connecting system is not a valid MX". The requirement in question is that the sending domain has an MX record -- I don't think it has anything to do with the connecting client machine. If a real SMTP client attempts to send email to domainX, it will first look up the MX and try sending there; if there is no MX record, then the mail is directed at the A record. This is all governed by RFCs. Can you give an example of a legitimate SMTP server out there that rejects email based solely on the fact that it comes from a domain with no MX record? It used to happen to me regularly, but I don't run my own mail server any more. I am sure some people do this, but I'd be surprised if it were as prevalent as you suggest. Back when I ran a mail server, I would have guessed that 5-10% of servers required that the sending domain have an MX record. I'm getting "status=deferred connection timed out (port 25)" from relay.verizon.net.
Re: sendmail?
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 01:33:47PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting > client. That client needn't be the MX for the domain from which email > is arriving. Negative, "system" -- that is to say "domain" in this case. Consider yourself surprised.. email systems (domains) that don't have mx's will find themselves having problems despite the fact that its not an rfc requirement.
Re: sendmail?
zirath wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2008-12-27, Sahil Tandon wrote: >> >>> jk...@kinz.org wrote: >>> > [...] you do not need an MX record to send or receive mail. > True, but many email systems will no longer accept email that comes from a system/address with no valid MX record. Yet another spam defense technique. As a result, if you don't have an MX record much of your mail may be rejected, so these days having an MX record is "almost" a requirement. >>> This is also false. >>> >> >> I used to have mail rejected because the sending domain didn't >> have an MX record. After I set up my MX record, those systems >> that used to reject mail started to accept mail. >> >> >>> Sending email from a domain without an MX record is perfectly >>> acceptable. >>> >> >> That depends. Some mail servers accept it, soem don't. >> >> >>> And, when you receive email from most major mailers (i.e. >>> gmail), the connecting system is not a valid MX. >>> >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "the connecting system >> is not a valid MX". The requirement in question is that the >> sending domain has an MX record -- I don't think it has >> anything to do with the connecting client machine. >> >> >>> If a real SMTP client attempts to send email to domainX, it >>> will first look up the MX and try sending there; if there is >>> no MX record, then the mail is directed at the A record. This >>> is all governed by RFCs. Can you give an example of a >>> legitimate SMTP server out there that rejects email based >>> solely on the fact that it comes from a domain with no MX >>> record? >>> >> >> It used to happen to me regularly, but I don't run my own mail >> server any more. >> >> >>> I am sure some people do this, but I'd be surprised if it were >>> as prevalent as you suggest. >>> >> >> Back when I ran a mail server, I would have guessed that 5-10% >> of servers required that the sending domain have an MX record. >> >> > I'm getting "status=deferred connection timed out (port 25)" from > relay.verizon.net. Try outgoing.verizon.net, and also on the submission port if possible. -- Sahil Tandon
Re: sendmail?
jk...@kinz.org wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 01:33:47PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting > > client. That client needn't be the MX for the domain from which email > > is arriving. > > Negative, "system" -- that is to say "domain" in this case. system != domain in technical discourse, so no. > Consider yourself surprised.. Consider yourself corrected. > email systems (domains) that don't have mx's will find themselves having > problems despite the fact that its not an rfc requirement. Truism. That is an entirely different statement than saying (as you did in your original post) that having an MX record is a de facto requirement for sending mail. Domains lacking SPF or DKIM/DomainKeys setup will find themselves having trouble sending to mailboxes at Yahoo and Hotmail, so is that a "requirement"? No. -- Sahil Tandon
Re: sendmail?
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 06:55:26PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > jk...@kinz.org wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 01:33:47PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > > jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting > > > client. That client needn't be the MX for the domain from which email > > > is arriving. > > > > Negative, "system" -- that is to say "domain" in this case. > > system != domain in technical discourse, so no. > > > Consider yourself surprised.. > > Consider yourself corrected. > > > email systems (domains) that don't have mx's will find themselves having > > problems despite the fact that its not an rfc requirement. > > Truism. That is an entirely different statement than saying (as you did > in your original post) You can interpret it any way you like to make your position correct. and you will. That petty game is played by many. I'm mostly interested in conveying useful information. Anyone who wants to send out their own email will find their life better with an mx record, just like "tandon.net" has. its "almost" a requirement (quoting what I actually said.) --
Re: sendmail?
On 2008-12-27, Sahil Tandon wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: > >> > This is also false. >> >> I used to have mail rejected because the sending domain didn't >> have an MX record. After I set up my MX record, those systems >> that used to reject mail started to accept mail. > > This anecdote based on your experience does not mean it is a > "requirement" (as suggested by jkinz) to have an MX record in > order to send mail to most mailers. He said that some servers require it. You said that was false. I say it's true because I've seen servers that do. > jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting > 5-10%. Sounds like the exception rather than the rule or "requirement" >:-) 5-10% is plenty to establish that some servers do require it. -- Grant
Re: sendmail?
On 2008-12-27, Sahil Tandon wrote: > jk...@kinz.org wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 01:33:47PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: >> > jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting >> > client. That client needn't be the MX for the domain from which email >> > is arriving. >> >> Negative, "system" -- that is to say "domain" in this case. > > system != domain in technical discourse, so no. > >> Consider yourself surprised.. > > Consider yourself corrected. > >> email systems (domains) that don't have mx's will find themselves having >> problems despite the fact that its not an rfc requirement. > > Truism. That is an entirely different statement than saying (as you did > in your original post) that having an MX record is a de facto requirement > for sending mail. It _is_ a de-facto requirement if you want to be able to reliably send e-mail. If you're happy with 10% being rejected, then you don't need an MX record. -- Grant
Re: sendmail?
On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:10 PM, jk...@kinz.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 06:55:26PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: jk...@kinz.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 01:33:47PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting client. That client needn't be the MX for the domain from which email is arriving. Negative, "system" -- that is to say "domain" in this case. system != domain in technical discourse, so no. Consider yourself surprised.. Consider yourself corrected. email systems (domains) that don't have mx's will find themselves having problems despite the fact that its not an rfc requirement. Truism. That is an entirely different statement than saying (as you did in your original post) You can interpret it any way you like to make your position correct. and you will. That petty game is played by many. That was a cute monologue. I'm mostly interested in conveying useful information. FUD is not useful; best take interest in conveying accurate information. Anyone who wants to send out their own email will find their life better with an mx record, just like "tandon.net" has. This thread is going more and more off topic; agree to disagree and close this thread. All replies go to /dev/null. Thanks everyone for your interesting opinions.
