fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (04/21/89)
If you use rmail to deliver mail, the sender name gets screwed up.
If you use mail to deliver mail, the subject line ends up after
a blank line, therefore, no subject in the elm or mail headers list.
My (obvious) question is what do I use to replace rmail so things work?
A more general question is what is the right collection of programs to
stick together (elm, deliver, pathalias, ...) so that you make a decent
mailing system for XENIX?
Question 1 should be easy. Question 2 will probably generate discussion.
I would be interested in what other XENIX sites are using and would be
willing to summarize to the net.
--
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX
uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fylsyd@dsinc.DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (04/22/89)
In article <1902@ssc.UUCP> fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >If you use rmail to deliver mail, the sender name gets screwed up. >If you use mail to deliver mail, the subject line ends up after >a blank line, therefore, no subject in the elm or mail headers list. > >My (obvious) question is what do I use to replace rmail so things work? >A more general question is what is the right collection of programs to >stick together (elm, deliver, pathalias, ...) so that you make a decent >mailing system for XENIX? It's interesting to note all the problems with Xenix mail. As Elm Coordinator, I know first hand Xenix's problems with mail. Our gateway is a SCO Xenix 386 box. First off, what do we do: We used to run smail 2.5 here along with Excelans SMTP. We don't use micnet, so that wasn't a problem. That worked well. We recently acquired a copy of smail 3.1 and patched it to use the older socket system and run only that. It can do most of everything, and there is some unsupported micnet stuff distributed with it. (Again, we don't use micnet). I recommend using smail 2.5 and pathalias until smail 3.1 is released. (And yes, after they are proven a little more, we will be submitting our changed to the smail developers, and no, I won't send them to you. :-() -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor) (04/24/89)
In article <114@dsinc.DSI.COM>, syd@dsinc.DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes: > everything, and there is some unsupported micnet stuff distributed with > it. (Again, we don't use micnet). I recommend using smail 2.5 and We do use micnet. Heavily. Which prompted me to write the micnet support for smail3.1, and as the author, I plan to support it fully. If this is not clear in the micnet files distributed with smail3 I will make sure that it is changed before the official release. Micnet isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but it's cheap, uses existing hardware, and isn't real hard to set up. As stated in the past, if anyone's interested, I've also experimented with several ways to add micnet support to smail2.5. ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Filtration Sciences Corporation 615/821-4022 x. 651 *** Altos users unite! mail to "info-altos-request@tiamat.fsc.com" ***
joe@int212.UUCP (Joseph Francis) (04/25/89)
In article <114@dsinc.DSI.COM> syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein) writes: >In article <1902@ssc.UUCP> fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >>If you use rmail to deliver mail, the sender name gets screwed up. >>If you use mail to deliver mail, the subject line ends up after >>a blank line, therefore, no subject in the elm or mail headers list. >> ... >It's interesting to note all the problems with Xenix mail. As Elm >Coordinator, I know first hand Xenix's problems with mail. Our gateway >is a SCO Xenix 386 box. > I just installed 2.1 Elm on our machines, and there certainly were problems with SCO 'rmail', etc. I twitched the code to use 'mail' correctly and had no subsequent problems; But: previously, with rmail, it would not send node names correctly (I was constatly sent out as joe@+++.uucp) and my news still doesn't look at /etc/systemid, but I don't have the time to find the source and play around again for news. The fun thing was, replying to an elm-sent mail in the original configuration: It sent a reply automatically addressed to "...!blah!anonymous" from "anonymous", and the mailer_daemon of course would send the message back to the originator, 'no local user 'anonymous'' or something like that, back to anonymous of and after about an hour of this back-and fourth the complete mail file would be immense, happily tacking on mailer error messages. A nice echo. (But what a drag it was rewriting 'getty' to handle bidirectional 'direct' lines for uucp's. SCO doesn't distribute a 'uugetty' type thing even with V2.3. *sigh*) -- Jo-jo [Fromm doubter space :: formerdly Caltech] (...!elroy!peregrine!zardoz!avcoint!int212!joe) (...!uunet!spsd!zardoz!avcoint!int212!joe) (...!uunet!zardoz!avcoint!int212!joe)
randy@m2xenix.UUCP (Randy Bush) (04/25/89)
Elm 2.2 is running just wonderfully here on 2.3.1 386 Xenix after one hack.
Configure thinks that rmail should be called to deliver, and it should be
execmail. The symptom is mail from 'anonymous' and other garbage.
--
{ mcvax!uunet!oresoft, tektronix!percival!qiclab } !m2xenix!randy Randy Bushecu@libcmp.UUCP (Edward C. Unrein) (04/27/89)
> (But what a drag it was rewriting 'getty' to handle bidirectional 'direct' > lines for uucp's. SCO doesn't distribute a 'uugetty' type thing even > with V2.3. *sigh*) > > -- > Jo-jo [Fromm doubter space :: formerdly Caltech] > (...!elroy!peregrine!zardoz!avcoint!int212!joe) > (...!uunet!spsd!zardoz!avcoint!int212!joe) > (...!uunet!zardoz!avcoint!int212!joe) I'am not sure where you obtained this information from, but the fact is: SCO version 2.3.1 and up supports HoneyDanBer UUCP and "ungetty"! Ed Unrein (peora!rtmvax!libcmp!ecu) Liberty Computers, Inc. (407) 293-6346 office voice number UNIX guest account (407) 299-6947 TELEBIT (8N1) login: guest UUCP: libcmp Any (2400,FAST) 14072996947 ogin:-""-ogin:-""-ogin:nuucp
big.t@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Lamy) (04/28/89)
Hi netlanders !
Just one question: I'd really like to run elm2.2 on our Xenix/286,
Release 2.2.1. But the 'Configure'-script smashes when it arrives
to exec config.sh with a stack overflow ( as promised in the
README). But - how can I fix this ? Nobody I have asked knows a way
to increase the stack size for the bourne shell... I post this here
because i'm not alone with this; many people in Berlin have the
same problem.
Thanx in advance !
Thomas
--
Thomas Lamy DOMAIN : big.t@netmbx.UUCP
Schoenburgstrasse 23 ...{pyramid|altger|tub|unido}!tmpmbx!netmbx!big.t
1000 Berlin 42 Phone : (+49 30) 752 78 44 (Voice!)fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (05/02/89)
In article <2653@netmbx.UUCP>, big.t@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Lamy) writes: > Just one question: I'd really like to run elm2.2 on our Xenix/286, > Release 2.2.1. But the 'Configure'-script smashes when it arrives > to exec config.sh with a stack overflow ( as promised in the > README). make a copy of the shell (sh you don't always have to use this new one) let's say you call it shb. fixhdr -F 8000 shb shb Configure All will work fine. -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl