Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

Hello. I'd like to help! ... not a clue if this fits your requirements or whether it is indeed helpful. (Its meant to be my benefit to the group, rather of awaiting replies to my own inquiries ...) I use following setup in postfix, which I think is much greater then exim. (exim and ppp/dialin gav

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

Nano Nano wrote: # postconf myorigin myorigin = $myhostname # postconf myhostname myhostname = desk OK. Some hosts will reject your host's HELO/EHLO, but the comcast thing was probably due to your MAIL FROM: address' domain not being in the Internet DNS. Should I just change "mail name" during

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:39:54AM +0100, Tobias Reckhard wrote: > Nano Nano wrote: > >My first test message to the outside world bounced with: > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host smtp.comcast.net[216.148.227.125] said: > >550 > >[PERMFAIL] comcast.net requires valid sender (in reply to RCPT TO

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

Nano Nano wrote: My first test message to the outside world bounced with: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host smtp.comcast.net[216.148.227.125] said: 550 [PERMFAIL] comcast.net requires valid sender (in reply to RCPT TO command) exim always added my "Sender" header for me. I presume comcast is reject

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 02:26:32AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Well, looking at your scripts: > you have won several Useless Use of Cat Awards A bad habit of mine, I'm afraid... > Or perhaps pigeons just like cats. :) Many a true word is spoken in jest... Some pigeons enjoy teasing cats, and

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned: > On 2004-01-30 11:03:07 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote: >> On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned: >> > But the man page is far from being clear and incomplete (compared >> > to the procmail man pages). >> >> Have you looked at `man procmailex`? It has a lot

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On 2004-01-31 23:51:55 +, Pigeon wrote: > I don't think I'm trying to say "don't use procmail". Just that > there's more than one way to skin a cat. Which is one of the things I > like about Linux. I had the choice between "figure out procmail" and > "use bash / ed / exim which I already know";

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:45:04PM -0700, s. keeling wrote: > Incoming from Pigeon: > > > > exim -bm. Useful if you want to avoid having to learn > > Sanskrit^Wprocmail. > > > > For example, the following is what I use to strip the advertising from > > Yahoo Groups mailing list traffic: > > Oh y

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On 2004-01-31 18:43:10 +, Pigeon wrote: > ...you mean that if you pipe a message through some external program > you can't then feed the output of that program back into exim? It > initially appears so, but it's straightforward to write a shellscript > wrapper for the external program that adds

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On 2004-01-30 22:18:58 -0500, Adam Aube wrote: > Have you looked at maildrop? I hesitated between maildrop and procmail and chose procmail propably because I was already using it on another account. But maildrop is installed on my machine. BTW, does anyone know when the new version (1.6.3) will be

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

Incoming from Pigeon: > > exim -bm. Useful if you want to avoid having to learn > Sanskrit^Wprocmail. > > For example, the following is what I use to strip the advertising from > Yahoo Groups mailing list traffic: Oh yes, that's far simpler than learning Sanskrit^Wprocmail. Yesiree, Bob! You b

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:09:21AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > * A result of a pipe can't be retrieved (and that's why the FAQ > recommends to use procmail for such things). ...you mean that if you pipe a message through some external program you can't then feed the output of that program ba

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nano Nano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:21:46AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> On 2004-01-30 14:57:37 -0800, Nano Nano wrote: >> > Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that >> > adds the correct From for list-

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2004-01-30 18:34:17 +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: >> See http://www.exim.org/ . Click on "Documentation and FAQs". > >There are several things I don't like: You're probably right on most of those, exim filtering

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

Moin, * Adam Aube wrote (2004-01-31 04:18): >On Friday 30 January 2004 07:09 pm, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> However, procmail isn't perfect. The main problem is that it isn't >> very powerful and may need other tools (mainly formail, but also >> perl for the most complicated filters). A 100% perl-b

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

Hi, * Vincent Lefevre wrote (2004-01-31 01:09): >However, procmail isn't perfect. The main problem is that it isn't >very powerful and may need other tools (mainly formail, but also >perl for the most complicated filters). A 100% perl-based solution >(with primitives for MIME decoding) would proba

Re: Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On Friday 30 January 2004 07:09 pm, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > However, procmail isn't perfect. The main problem is that it isn't > very powerful and may need other tools (mainly formail, but also > perl for the most complicated filters). A 100% perl-based solution > (with primitives for MIME decodin

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Dan Lawrence said: >> I am not sure why you need to upgrade postfix to a newer version >> from stable? What new wizbang items does it do? > damn just do apt-get -t testing install postfix But I was wondering was thus? Not how to upgrade,but... Why upgrade to the newer version of postfix? -- --Lu

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:21:46AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2004-01-30 14:57:37 -0800, Nano Nano wrote: > > Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that > > adds the correct From for list-replies. I guess I'll have to make sure > > Mutt adds a valid From or Se

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On 2004-01-30 14:57:37 -0800, Nano Nano wrote: > Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that > adds the correct From for list-replies. I guess I'll have to make sure > Mutt adds a valid From or Sender in all cases. > > I'll have to make sure all mail-generating progra

Exim vs Procmail (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On 2004-01-30 18:34:17 +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > See http://www.exim.org/ . Click on "Documentation and FAQs". Thanks. The FAQ says to use procmail. :) > The same documentation is available as a text file in > /usr/share/doc/exim (spec.txt and filter.txt). There are several things I

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On 2004-01-30 11:03:07 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote: > On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned: > > But the man page is far from being clear and incomplete (compared to > > the procmail man pages). > > Have you looked at `man procmailex`? It has a lot of very clear > examples. I was complaining

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 10:28:43PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: > I deliver my mails with a valid from address, which [EMAIL PROTECTED] is > not. Maybe you should fix your MUA? Aha, that explains why the 2nd message worked: I have a mutt rule that adds the correct From for list-replies. I guess

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

Hi, * Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 09:16): >Jan 29 21:54:37 desk postfix/pickup[1851]: E6A93145E1: uid=[removed] from=<[removed]> >Jan 29 21:54:37 desk postfix/cleanup[1856]: E6A93145E1: message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Jan 29 21:54:37 desk postfix/qmgr[1852]: E6A93145E1: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 06:36:44PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > > Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. For > > example here's the filter for this list: > > > > # Debian-user > > if > > $h_List-ID: contains

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: >> Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. > >But the man page is far from being clear and incomplete (compared to >the procmail man pages). > >Fi

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On 2004-01-30, Vincent Lefevre penned: > On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: >> Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. >> For example here's the filter for this list: >> >> # Debian-user if $h_List-ID: contains >> "" then save Mail/debian-user endif > >

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On 2004-01-30 09:03:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. For > example here's the filter for this list: > > # Debian-user > if > $h_List-ID: contains "" > then > save Mail/debian-user > endif But the man page is far from being cle

Re: MDA (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

On 2004-01-30, Thorsten Haude penned: > > --ryJZkp9/svQ58syV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: > quoted-printable > > Moin, > > * Katipo wrote (2004-01-30 09:00): >>Procmail is definitely worth looking at. > > If you like Sendmail, y

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Vincent Lefevre wrote: Could you explain why? Procmail is an MDA which provides filtering. Exim does not need an MDA and has its own user-level filtering. For example here's the filter for this list: # Debian-user if $h_List-ID: contains "" then save Mail/debian-user endif --

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On 2004-01-30 00:08:41 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > Katipo wrote: > >Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also > >clamav, spamassassin, amavis, spamc. > > procmail is largely unneeded with exim. Could you explain why? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web:

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Friday 30 January 2004 02:59 am, Steve Lamb wrote: > Queue maintenance? Correct me if I'm wrong but is this FUD. > > Removing a message from Exim's queue: > exim -Mrm > > Removing a message from qmail's queue: > Issue command to shut down qmail. > Sometimes wait up to 20m for it to comple

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nano Nano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:43PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: >> >> Configuration: Internet with smarthost >> Append .domain? No >> Smtp relay host? My ISPs smtp server >> Final destination domains? >> --->Force synchronous upd

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On 29 Jan 2004, "Lucas Albers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in linux.debian.user: > I am not sure why you need to upgrade postfix to a newer version > from stable? What new wizbang items does it do? I'm sure there is a "proper" directory to do this in, but I normally make a subdir in /tmp. edit /e

MDA (was: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others)

Moin, * Katipo wrote (2004-01-30 09:00): >Procmail is definitely worth looking at. If you like Sendmail, you'll *love* Procmail. For other people, try a software which looks less like line noise. I started using Maildrop for real a couple of weeks ago and I am quite impressed. Nothing from my pr

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:02:25AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: > Moin, > > * Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 08:52): > >On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: > >> What's in the log for this message? > > > >from /var/log/mail.log: > > > >Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Katipo wrote: Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also clamav, spamassassin, amavis, spamc. procmail is largely unneeded with exim. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:40:28 -0800 Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam Aube wrote: > > My personal preference is qmail. Not sure if it's available in the Debian > > archive or not, but you can check out www.qmail.org for more info - look > > for the links to netqmail. > > Probably

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Lucas Albers wrote: Sendmail does a lot, the milter interface allows you to massage/filter/virus scan email, and reject at the 5xx level. Doing it with Exim as well. *shrug* -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main co

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

Moin, * Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 08:52): >On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: >> What's in the log for this message? > >from /var/log/mail.log: > >Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756: >to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=smtp.comcast.net[204.127.198.27],

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

Moin, * Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 08:52): >On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: >> What's in the log for this message? > >from /var/log/mail.log: > >Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756: >to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=smtp.comcast.net[204.127.198.27],

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 04:00:49PM +0800, Katipo wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:13:58 +1100 > > http://shearer.org/en/writing/mtacomparison.html ^^^ > > > Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also > clamav, spamassassin, amavis, spamc. Procmail is an MDA. T

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Jamin W. Collins wrote: That just FUD. It may not be the easiest MTA to work with but the above is just misleading and wrong. Is it? Queue maintenance? Correct me if I'm wrong but is this FUD. Removing a message from Exim's queue: exim -Mrm Removing a message from qmail's queue: Issue

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:52:13PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: > > What's in the log for this message? > > from /var/log/mail.log: > > Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756: > to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=smtp.comcast.n

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:13:58 +1100 "Ian Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Over the weekend, I will 'play'. > > I just came across this comparison of the four which I found interesting. > http://shearer.org/en/writing/mtacomparison.html > Procmail is definitely worth looking at. Also clamav,

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:19:36AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: > What's in the log for this message? from /var/log/mail.log: Jan 29 23:42:00 desk postfix/smtp[4117]: 8AEF514756: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=smtp.comcast.net[204.127.198.27], delay=0, status=bounced (host smtp.comcast.net[204.1

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Adam Aube wrote: I've added patches for various purposes, but not for security. What security problems were you patching against? I consider fundimental checks against spam and viruses to be part and parcel to security. What "idiotic" ideas? qmail is designed to be secure, fast, and simple -

Re: postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

Hi, * Nano Nano wrote (2004-01-30 07:01): >My first test message to the outside world bounced with: > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host smtp.comcast.net[216.148.227.125] said: >550 >[PERMFAIL] comcast.net requires valid sender (in reply to RCPT TO >command) > >exim always added my "Sender" header f

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:40:28PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > Adam Aube wrote: > >My personal preference is qmail. Not sure if it's available in the > >Debian archive or not, but you can check out www.qmail.org for more > >info - look for the links to netqmail. > > Probably not given the nature of

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On 29 Jan 2004, "Ian Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in linux.debian.user: > I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is > there an advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of > setup/maintenance etc ? I would be interested in comments from > those who have u

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Tobias Reckhard said: > I'll throw postfix into the ring. It's very secure and still very > flexible. You may want to use a more recent version than the one in > woody, though, but a backport is available on http://www.backports.org. I am not sure why you need to upgrade postfix to a newer version

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Steve Lamb said: > Sendmail - so difficult to configure the configuration language needs > a > macro language to make sense of it. > > Exim - so easy to configure that in most cases you can do it with the > comments in the config file. > > That's where the comperison ends for me.

RE: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Over the weekend, I will 'play'. I just came across this comparison of the four which I found interesting. http://shearer.org/en/writing/mtacomparison.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

At 2004-01-30T05:11:23Z, Adam Aube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not sure if it's available in the Debian archive or not, It's in non-free. qmail isn't free software. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

postfix [was Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:53:43PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote: > > Configuration: Internet with smarthost > Append .domain? No > Smtp relay host? My ISPs smtp server > Final destination domains? > --->Force synchronous updates on mail queue? Yes > > Is that it? Just drop in and go? I did "force

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Friday 30 January 2004 12:40 am, Steve Lamb wrote: > > qmail, by default, will not relay AT ALL, and I have found it very > > easy to install and setup. > o.O I've had to work with QMail and I have to say that it is one > big giant headache. I disagree, but we are each entitled to our op

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:36:22PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > That's where the comperison ends for me. I've never found a need for > sendmail in the modern 'net populated with Postfix and Exim. Well, i just bit the bullet: I installed postfix-tls on Sid. Up till now I just answer the questi

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Adam Aube wrote: My personal preference is qmail. Not sure if it's available in the Debian archive or not, but you can check out www.qmail.org for more info - look for the links to netqmail. Probably not given the nature of its license. qmail, by default, will not relay AT ALL, and I have fo

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Ian Perry wrote: I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who have used both. sendmail is probably more difficult. Is there something

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Ian Perry wrote: I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who have used both. Sendmail - so difficult to configure the configuration

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:50:54 +1100 "Ian Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an > advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance > etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who h

Re: Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

On Thursday 29 January 2004 11:50 pm, Ian Perry wrote: > I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is > there an advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of > setup/maintenance etc ? I would be interested in comments from those > who have used both. > Is there

Sendmail vs Exim vs Others

Hi, I know this question is subjective to personal preferences Is there an advantage to exim over sendmail or vice versa for ease of setup/maintenance etc ? I would be interested in comments from those who have used both. Is there something better than either of them ? I have very little e