RE: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

2003-12-30 Thread Dan Muey
> --As off Tuesday, December 30, 2003 12:33 PM -0600, Dan Muey is > alleged to have said: > > >> They are doing the Right Thing and not being an open > relay. Basically > >> the server says *one* of the persons involved has to be > > > > In both cases one is always a local user. But only in one

RE: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

2003-12-30 Thread Daniel Staal
--As off Tuesday, December 30, 2003 12:33 PM -0600, Dan Muey is alleged to have said: They are doing the Right Thing and not being an open relay. Basically the server says *one* of the persons involved has to be In both cases one is always a local user. But only in one case is authentication requ

RE: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

2003-12-30 Thread Dan Muey
> [snip] > > > Right, but my question is why do I need to authenticate local > > to remote and not remote to local not why do I have to > > authenticate at all. I'm well aware of the spam relay fun! :) > > [snip] > > If you are going to authenticate remote to local, that would > mean every

RE: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

2003-12-30 Thread Shawn McKinley
[snip] > Right, but my question is why do I need to authenticate local > to remote and not remote to local not why do I have to > authenticate at all. I'm well aware of the spam relay fun! :) [snip] If you are going to authenticate remote to local, that would mean every email server trying t

RE: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

2003-12-30 Thread Dan Muey
> > > They are doing the Right Thing and not being an open relay. > Basically the server says *one* of the persons involved has to be In both cases one is always a local user. But only in one case is authentication required. > known to it. If the email is for a local user it knows that perso

Re: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

2003-12-30 Thread Daniel Staal
--As off Tuesday, December 30, 2003 11:58 AM -0600, Dan Muey is alleged to have said: So now it said "Connection not established" for the local sending to remote, which I would think would be the easiest one, especially since: Local to local is ok. Remote to local is ok. I'm not doing any remote

My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

2003-12-30 Thread Dan Muey
> > > The thing is I get "Sending...Done" everytime but never a > > dleivery and > > > no hinf tof it in the logs. On one server I needed to use smtp > > > authentication but that set $@ and said connection This part of it was completely stupid on my part: I was doing if($@) { ... I added if($@

RE: Mail::Sender weirdness

2003-12-29 Thread Dan Muey
> From: "Dan Muey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Here's wht I have: > > $r .= "Sending..."; > > eval { > > my $senderx = new Mail::Sender {smtp => $smtp, from => $from }; > > You forgot to tell Mail::Sender to die in case of an error :-) Oohhh, yeah :) Thanks > > > $senderx->Open({subject =>

Re: Mail::Sender weirdness

2003-12-29 Thread Jenda Krynicky
From: "Dan Muey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Here's wht I have: > $r .= "Sending..."; > eval { > my $senderx = new Mail::Sender {smtp => $smtp, from => $from }; You forgot to tell Mail::Sender to die in case of an error :-) > $senderx->Open({subject => $subj, to => $to }); > $senderx->SendLineEnc