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.
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 del
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 n
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
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
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
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 a
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 re
* 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
> > > >
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
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
"requir
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 err
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 defen
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 yo
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
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 "
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 w
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 o
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.
>
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 n
20 matches
Mail list logo
