ruiu@tic.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) (11/23/87)
Does anyone know why HP-UX mail (equiv SVR2 mail, mailx) blows up when asked to reply to mail with an Internet (@) From: line ? It really blows up, Segmentation Fault (core dumped)! Before anyone replies with the obvious, I have tried the -U and set conv... There is no rc file, so nothing funny is going on there, and I have tested this with settings that *shouldn't* make a difference. It doesn't complain at all, it just goes boom. Here is a sample of mail-slaying mail: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >From dragos!work Sun Nov 22 15:39 MST 1987 >Received: from dragos with uucp; Sun, 22 Nov 87 15:23:46 >Received: by dragos.UUCP (smail2.5) > id AA00150; 22 Nov 87 15:23:46 MST (Sun) >To: ruiu@tic >Subject: let's try again >Message-Id: <8711221523.AA00150@dragos.UUCP> >Date: 22 Nov 87 15:23:46 MST (Sun) >From: work@dragos.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) >Status: R > >fdsdafds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason I assume that the From: line is guilty is because the only cause of the blow up seems to be system dragos switching to smail 2.5. Please e-mail suggestions, will summarize on request. Will post fix or workaround if this is really a bug and not my stupidity. -- Dragos Ruiu Disclaimer: My opinons are my employer's, I'm unemployed! UUCP:{ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135,ihnp4}!alberta!edson!tic!dragos!work (403) 432-0090 #1705, 8515 112th Street, Edmonton, Alta. Canada T6G 1K7 Never play leapfrog with Unicorns...
raveling@vaxa.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (11/24/87)
[I tried to answer via email, but got a mailer error of a type unknown to me, so will post. BTW, the mailer error ocurred on a VAX running BSD4.3. In my opinion the "universal" mail support on Un*x systems is a pile of dung, no matter which breed of Un*x it is. I sincerely hope someone will flame me for this statement and prove there's GOOD mail support somewhere.] In article <159@tic.UUCP> you write: >Does anyone know why HP-UX mail (equiv SVR2 mail, mailx) blows up when asked >to reply to mail with an Internet (@) From: line ? > >It really blows up, Segmentation Fault (core dumped)! I don't have that problem, although it's easy to imagine it could occur. My best guess is there's probably something that needs a change in your sendmail.cf file. I'm using a version that I hacked somewhat blindly -- sendmail's way of specifying address rewriting rules is atrocious. One possibility is the mailer invocation. The sendmail.cf that came with our systems (I believe from HPLabs, at least a year ago) caused sendmail to invoke mail with a switch that mail didn't honor. If possible, get in touch with Peter Marvit (Marvit@hplabs.hp.com). He seems to be more adept with mail problems than anyone else on HP systems. --------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu
ramin@scampi.UUCP (Fubar Void) (11/27/87)
In article <159@tic.UUCP>, ruiu@tic.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) writes: > Does anyone know why HP-UX mail (equiv SVR2 mail, mailx) blows up when asked > to reply to mail with an Internet (@) From: line ? > > It really blows up, Segmentation Fault (core dumped)! > > Before anyone replies with the obvious, I have tried the -U and set conv... > There is no rc file, so nothing funny is going on there, and I have tested > this with settings that *shouldn't* make a difference. > Running mailx on HP9000/840, we had problems with segmentation faults. This particular problem was with parsing errors in the mailrc file. An extra space around an "=" was the problem in this case (*WE* were amused (:-)) Before that, another error was found to be *NOT* having an rc file (and the necessary adjunct, an unreadable rc file. And yet another was an accidental erasure of "sendmail.cf" which was restored. Mailx works fine now, but is *VERY* touchy. Individual users can crash their copies by not being careful in their .mailrc file. Fixes, reportedly, are in the works... Hope this helps... r. -- ramin@scampi.sc-scicon.com --or-- {ihnp4,lll-lcc,hoptoad}!scampi!ramin
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <159@tic.UUCP>, ruiu@tic.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) writes: > Does anyone know why HP-UX mail (equiv SVR2 mail, mailx) blows up when asked > to reply to mail with an Internet (@) From: line ? > > It really blows up, Segmentation Fault (core dumped)! If your problem is my problem, the issue is simple. /bin/mailx is sort of a front end for /bin/mail. The biggest problem with this is that /bin/mail dosn't know a @ from adam. For inastance if I say "mailx -U rwhite" [which is me] /bin/mail will choke on the "rwhite@nusdhub" and return an error message ot the tune of "unknown system name" or "user not found" or some such. [I don't remember which] My basic guess is that the either 1) your /bin/mail program has not been hacked to return an error, or 2) the pipe-handler in your kernel is doing odd things when the "@" is written to or read from the pipe, or 3) when /bin/mailx is setting up the exec call to /bin/mail it is violating some vaccous quoting standard for the handeling of the @. If you have an internet capable mailer, you should set sendmail= under mailx, to that mailer's path, or loose the "@" entirly Rob. Disclaimer: Spelling only counts if a _machine_ is going to parse...
diamant@hpfclp.UUCP (12/06/87)
> In article <159@tic.UUCP>, ruiu@tic.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) writes: > > Does anyone know why HP-UX mail (equiv SVR2 mail, mailx) blows up when asked > > to reply to mail with an Internet (@) From: line ? > > > > It really blows up, Segmentation Fault (core dumped)! > > If you have an internet capable mailer, you should set sendmail= > under mailx, to that mailer's path, or loose the "@" entirly This commment reminded me of a possible source of the problem. Sendmail is shipped on HP-UX disabled. The way this is done is by having the execute bits turned off on /usr/lib/sendmail. This is done because not everyone wants or needs sendmail, and it does require some administration, so a normal update will not turn it on. If that is the case, you can globally enable it for the machine by changing the permissions (which you have to do anyway if you want to use sendmail) and then you don't need to set sendmail= in your .mailrc or whatever, since it knows the default location for sendmail. If you are using smail or something else instead of sendmail, then changing sendmail's permissions would be unnecessary. /bin/mail is too dumb to deal with "@" addresses, so you have to have a smarter mail transport (sendmail or smail, or both). I don't know why you get a segmentation fault -- it's obviously a bug, but I've never seen it (on a 300, even when sendmail is turned off). John Diamant UUCP: {hplabs,hpfcla}!hpfclp!diamant Hewlett Packard Co. ARPA Internet: diamant%hpfclp@hplabs.HP.COM Fort Collins, CO