Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups - Slackware ; rm@biteme.org wrote: > ... the email address of the original machine is the default envelope > sender. You are being pedantic. What, exactly, is "the email address of the original machine"??? > Oh, and BTW, the real issue is what ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

  1. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    rm@biteme.org wrote:

    > ... the email address of the original machine is the default envelope
    > sender. You are being pedantic.


    What, exactly, is "the email address of the original machine"???

    > Oh, and BTW, the real issue is what is best for "Mike."


    The real issue is helping Mike accomplish what he was trying to do,
    which I believe he's confirmed has been done. Does that mean we can
    drop this now?

    I have no delusions of knowing what is "best" for Mike. He hasn't
    provided nearly enough information about his setup for anyone to make
    any claims about what is "best" for him. He did, however, apparently
    provide enough information to be able to get the help he was after to
    accomplish what he was trying to accomplish.

    > And in our example the envelope sender would be xxx@justlinux.ca.
    > Or more precisely xxx@realto.justlinux.ca.
    > ...
    > But xxx@realto.justlinux.ca is sending the original message to you,
    > and if smtp.concordia.ca has to send a bounce, it will lookup up the
    > MX record for domain justlinux.ca, the envelope sender, and send the
    > bounce to that system.
    >
    > Except that domain name isn't up because it is attached to an
    > intermittent dialup machine. ...


    If _your_ configuration is incorrect because your mail is going out
    with the wrong envelope sender, that isn't my fault or Mike's nor is
    it Mike's problem. In this example, if your mail is going out with the
    wrong envelope sender (which incidentally it can just as easily do even
    if your MUA submits it directly to your ISP's SMTP server), fix _your_
    configuration.

    Note also that in this specific example, smtp.concordia.ca would not
    send a bounce if the message isn't deliverable, as it would accept the
    message in the first place only if it *is* deliverable. The bounce
    would come either from your ISP's mail relay (if you're configured to
    relay through it) or from your own mail server. That's getting pretty
    specific to the example, though. Nevertheless, it's starting to become
    fairly common for receiving MTAs to accept messages only after ensuring
    that they will be deliverable, leaving the sending MTAs to deal with
    bounces (which is as it should be, in my opinion).

    > If Mike is using his isp's domain, then what you are saying is
    > correct. .... Mike hasn't told us whose domain he is using.


    That's right. I based my suggestion entirely on information Mike
    provided, and in no way on anything that I (or anyone else) might have
    conjured from the information he gave. I happen to think that was the
    right thing to do in this case. Your mileage may vary, and all that.

    If Mike finds things are still not exactly as he'd like them, I'm sure
    he'll ask some more specific questions.

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  2. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, rm@biteme.org wrote:
    > Kees Theunissen trolled:

    [...]
    >> The OP asked how he could start a queue run. Where did he tell
    >> that it was a single-user system?

    >
    > Queue run? We didn't see anything about any queues in his posting.
    > But what we did see, ss that all he cares about is "Mike's" mail
    > being sent out. Do you think he has more than one user named Mike
    > on his system?
    >

    [...]


    pretty d* funny if it weren't so sad:


    the OP's -first- post was fetchmail giving a DNS error when run as user
    but okay as root. The OP misinterpreted this as a group permissions issue.

    your initial reply was to advise to not use sendmail, completely
    disregarding the OP's fetchmail/DNS message that was given.

    Sylvain set the fetchmail issue right, toot sweet.




    So, the OP's -second- post to aols thanks Sylvain: fetchmail is fixed.
    Then the OP, for the first time, describes his sendmail problem:
    sendmail, when run by user, gives the specific error message,

    "You do not have permission to process the queue".




    The OP's third and fourth posts answer questions from Jim and
    provide more detail to Sylvain.

    Three days later, the OP's fifth post thanks Sylvain: sendmail is fixed.


    Still -completely- unaware of what the OP has written, solving problems
    that don't exist and creating more problems where there were none, you
    fire off a nastygram:

    whaaaa whaaaaa whaaaaaa no one thanked Us! boohoo hoo hooooooo






    Queue? what queue?

    --
    William Hunt, Portland Oregon USA

  3. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    Sylvain Robitaille trolled:
    > rm@biteme.org wrote:
    >> ... the email address of the original machine is the default envelope
    >> sender. You are being pedantic.

    >
    > What, exactly, is "the email address of the original machine"???


    In a single user, dialup system like Mike has, there is only one
    machine. For example, during one of Mike's postings there was only
    one machine in the whole world with the address Mike@[69.19.254.230]
    Of course, since he is likely using a dynamic ip address, the
    address of his machine will likely change the next time he logs on.

    >> Oh, and BTW, the real issue is what is best for "Mike."


    > The real issue is helping Mike accomplish what he was trying to do,
    > which I believe he's confirmed has been done. Does that mean we can
    > drop this now?


    No, he's taken the long way around, on your advice, and you should
    be ashamed of yourself because you know that your advice was not the
    best advice he received. And others in this ng have also weighed in
    with the same conclusion.

    1. Did you inform Mike that fetchmail and sendmail are not sister
    programs and they not counterparts of each other?

    2. Did you inform Mike that if he really is using mutt or elm, as we
    suspect, then he is a dinosaur, and one of the worst enemies linux
    can have?

    3. Did you inform Mike that if he wasn't using mutt or elm then his
    problem would have been solved in about 10 seconds, using commands
    that do not require a 1200 page book to fully understand? After
    all, it was he who wanted to "understand" things and that is why he
    was using linux. Do you think he understands sendmail?

    4. Did you inform Mike that if he has trouble with his email then
    every single ISP technician in the WHOLE ****ING WORLD will tell him
    the smtp and pop server settings, to plug into virtually every mail
    app, regardless of operating system, so that he will be able to
    receive and send lovely mail to and from his machine?

    5. Did you inform Mike that you and a tiny but few zealots are the
    only people in the WHOLE ****ING WORLD that would recommend a
    sendmail solution to a single-user dialup problem?

    6. Did you inform Mike that he can set his envelope sender to the
    address of _your_ machine, and then send out hundreds of thousands
    of bogus emails and have the corresponding bounces come back to your
    machine (or machines if you want to spread it about) and fill up your
    hard drive(s)?

    Did you tell him these things? Now that we have told you, you can
    tell him. And since he doesn't want to read our email, the best way
    for you to tell him is to send an email to the address of his
    single-user dialup machine.

    You could try Mike@[69.19.254.230].

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  4. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    rm@biteme.org wrote:

    [...]
    >>>> -- It allows me to easily send mail from scripts using the 'mail'
    >>>> command.

    >
    >>> Easily? What is easy about sending email from scripts using the
    >>> mail command?

    >
    >> Something like:
    >>
    >> echo "It realy is easy!" | \
    >> mail -s "Scripting mail submission." rm@realto.justlinux.ca

    >
    > Go ahead and send it.


    No need for that. Just run it yourself if you think this needs some
    more testing.

    >
    >> Which part don't you understand?

    >
    > It's easy to understand for someone who knows elementary bash. But
    > it is still far more difficult than simply clicking on a thunderbird
    > or kwrite button.
    >
    > And which part of this don't you understand?


    I understood that completely. But clicking on thunderbird or kwrite
    buttons isn't the issue. I was talking about _scripting_ mail
    submissions. Scripting means "writing instructions for some interpreter"
    to automate a certain task. And "automate" means: just start the job
    unattended, and _certainly_ without the need to click on whatever
    button while the job runs.
    It's common practice to mail error messages of scripts to the user
    who is running the script. If something went wrong the user will be
    notified immediately without the need to inspect log files over and
    over again just to see that everything went well in normal cases.

    Is this really a new point of view after all your years of experience?

    Regards,

    Kees.


    --
    Kees Theunissen.

  5. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    Kees Theunissen trolled:

    > I understood that completely. But clicking on thunderbird or kwrite
    > buttons isn't the issue. I was talking about _scripting_ mail
    > submissions.


    And what does scripting mail submissions have to do with the subject
    of this thread?

    > Scripting means "writing instructions for some interpreter"


    Is that right?

    > to automate a certain task. And "automate" means: just start the
    > job unattended, and _certainly_ without the need to click on
    > whatever button while the job runs. It's common practice to mail
    > error messages of scripts to the user who is running the script.
    > If something went wrong the user will be notified immediately
    > without the need to inspect log files over and over again just to
    > see that everything went well in normal cases.


    We used vim scripts to make the text in your message more readable.

    > Is this really a new point of view after all your years of
    > experience?


    We were writing scripts for unix, applesoft, DSL and msdos long
    before you could wipe your own ass. What's your point? Are you so
    proud of your bash "mastery" that you simply want to talk about it?

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  6. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    On Jun 15, 11:10 pm, Sylvain Robitaille
    wrote:
    > suspecting that /etc/resolv.conf isn't readable, but I'd be curious to
    > know if you find the cause of the problem elsewhere.

    As a followup to what I posted earlier, I unrolled the changes I had
    made one at a time
    trying to get online and send/fetch mail at each step.
    As well as having edited ip-up/down these 2 files permissions were
    changed as shown:
    -rw-rw---- 1 root adm 226 May 24 22:03 /etc/ppp/pppscript
    -rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 366440 Jun 28 2006 /usr/sbin/pppd
    Though mike still can't force sendmail to run the queue, this will
    suffice until I understand
    sendmail's 'Trusted User'.

    > I hope I've helped.

    You've certainly been a big help.

    Thanks,
    Mike


  7. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    rm@biteme.org wrote:
    > Kees Theunissen trolled:
    >
    >> I understood that completely. But clicking on thunderbird or kwrite
    >> buttons isn't the issue. I was talking about _scripting_ mail
    >> submissions.

    >
    > And what does scripting mail submissions have to do with the subject
    > of this thread?


    Nothing at all. Just like most of the messages in this thread have
    nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Nevertheless those
    off-topic messages where for the overwhelming part directly invoked
    by you.

    [...]

    > We were writing scripts for unix, applesoft, DSL and msdos long
    > before you could wipe your own ass. What's your point? Are you so
    > proud of your bash "mastery" that you simply want to talk about it?


    Did I ever mention using "bash" for scripting?
    This discussion started about the benefits of running sendmail
    on dialup systems. I stated that running sendmail would make it
    possible to easily submit email messages from scripts.
    Nothing to be proud of, just one of several good reasons to run
    sendmail -or any other MTA- if you have this need.

    And regarding the point of being able to wipe my own ass: unfortunately
    I didn't record the first time. It must have been somewhere in the mid
    50-ties. Maybe you can show some of your unix/applesoft/dsl/msdos or
    whatever scripts you wrote in that period.
    Never mind. There is no point in arguing with you. The only thing you'll
    do is ignoring or twisting all arguments that don't fit in your strange
    point of view.
    The ultimate argument has already been given by William Hunt:

    Still -completely- unaware of what the OP has written, solving
    problems that don't exist and creating more problems where there
    were none, you fire off a nastygram:

    whaaaa whaaaaa whaaaaaa no one thanked Us! boohoo hoo hooooooo

    Nothing to add to that.

    I rest my case,

    Kees.

    --
    Kees Theunissen.

  8. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    Mike trolled:
    > Sylvain Robitaille wrote:


    >> suspecting that /etc/resolv.conf isn't readable, but I'd be
    >> curious to know if you find the cause of the problem elsewhere.


    > As a followup to what I posted earlier, I unrolled the changes I
    > had made one at a time trying to get online and send/fetch mail at


    Send and fetch are not sister apps. This is the source of your
    problem.

    > each step. As well as having edited ip-up/down these 2 files
    > permissions were changed as shown:


    > -rw-rw---- 1 root adm 226 May 24 22:03 /etc/ppp/pppscript
    > -rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 366440 Jun 28 2006 /usr/sbin/pppd


    > Though mike still can't force sendmail to run the queue, this will
    > suffice until I understand sendmail's 'Trusted User'.


    In other words, no progress at all. Mike still can't send his
    emails.

    >> I hope I've helped.


    > You've certainly been a big help.


    Let's see. You asked how to send your messages. You still can't
    send your messages. And Sylvain has been a big help?

    From now on, _nobody_ is going to help you because you have an
    exceptionally bad attitude. Well, Sylvain will try. And you've
    seen how far his help has taken you. You have been handed the
    answer to getting your emails out and you not only have yet to thank
    those who spent time figuring out a successful answer to your
    problem, you've totally ignored them.

    G'nite Martha.

    indefinite plonk

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  9. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    Kees Theunissen trolled:
    > rm@biteme.org wrote:
    >> Kees Theunissen trolled:


    >>> I understood that completely. But clicking on thunderbird or
    >>> kwrite buttons isn't the issue. I was talking about _scripting_
    >>> mail submissions.


    >> And what does scripting mail submissions have to do with the
    >> subject of this thread?


    > Nothing at all. Just like most of the messages in this thread have
    > nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Nevertheless those
    > off-topic messages where for the overwhelming part directly invoked
    > by you.


    All of the postings by us were on topic. We can't speak for anyone
    else, of course. But that hardly explains why you followed up our
    postings with this nonsense.

    >> We were writing scripts for unix, applesoft, DSL and msdos long
    >> before you could wipe your own ass. What's your point? Are you so
    >> proud of your bash "mastery" that you simply want to talk about it?

    >
    > Did I ever mention using "bash" for scripting?


    Oh, sorry. We assumed that you could script in bash. But if not,
    then that's ok, too.

    > This discussion started about the benefits of running sendmail
    > on dialup systems. I stated that running sendmail would make it


    No. This discussion started over how to solve "Mike's" problem
    whereby he could not post his emails. One person advocated using
    sendmail. Everybody else advocated using the isp's smtp server.
    Mike, bless his heart, took the sendmail advice, even though his
    problem still hasn't been solved, and discarded the info that would
    have solved his problem, without so much as a notice.

    Now perhaps he just wanted to talk to Sylvain and he never had a
    problem. Who knows?

    In any case, then you came along, with perfect timing for some comic
    relief. And there it is. You have nothing to offer the problem at
    hand however you do want us to know that you are able to do some
    scripting, but not in bash, apparently.

    Now is there anything else you want us to know about you? Or are
    you now satisfied that you have been noticed?

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  10. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:22 +0000, rm wrote:

    > answer to getting your emails out and you not only have yet to thank
    > those who spent time figuring out a successful answer to your
    > problem, you've totally ignored them.


    Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! WAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!

    > indefinite plonk


    Ahh, the public plonking announcement. The true sign of a luser. LOL.

    You didn't help him. You don't help anybody. You do nothing for anybody.

    Smeg off.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  11. Re: Slackware 11.0 dialup, mail, user groups

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Mike wrote:
    >
    > cordially, as always,
    >
    > rm


    LOL. You really have a schizoid complex going on, don't you,
    Roger?

    Go grab some polar bear stew and mix it with your own fecal
    matter. That should clear it up.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGefy1yBkZmuMZ8L8RApP8AJ9LRcmikNkxNwEzzTYlYx bRnyLVpACfWadP
    dF5LHfQZLvpY9RGjxjWUW/w=
    =C5fD
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3