lee@gdc.portal.com (Seng-Poh Lee, (203) 758-1811 Ext 7728) (12/29/90)
I currently run a standard Xenix system with only one dial-up connection. My
one and only uucp neighbour is an Internet site. When I send mail out to
Internet addresses, I have to type the address as "site!user@host.domain.com",
where site is my uucp neighbour. My mail system (Xenix 286 V2.2.1) doesn't
appear to know how to forward unresolved local mail (or at least I can't find
out!). I guess the ELM mail system supports this via it's sendmail, etc.
My question is;
How much of my mail system do I have to upgrade just so I can type
user@host.domain.com and have mail automatically forward it to my Internet
neighbour? My Internet neighbour can set his sendmail to keep my address in
domain style i.e. user%site.uucp@site.com, which is what I want. I have no
need for SMTP or anything like that. At work, I have a HP-UX station connected
up via uucp, and I modified the sendmail.cfg file to send ALL unresolved mail
via uucp to its Internet neighbour (even domain based addresses). I am trying
to achive the same thing on my home Xenix system. The HP came with senmail all
set up. My Xenix doesn't.
Any infomation from die-hard ELM mailers (or any other mail system) out there
would be greatly appreciated.
Seng-Poh Lee lee@gdc.portal.com
also cc to: lee%splee.uucp@hsi.comjan@unikla.ASK.SE (Jan S{ll) (01/01/91)
In article <881@gdc.portal.com> lee@gdc.portal.com (Seng-Poh Lee, (203) 758-1811 Ext 7728) writes: [text deleted] >My question is; > >How much of my mail system do I have to upgrade just so I can type >user@host.domain.com and have mail automatically forward it to my Internet >neighbour? I have had the same problem on our system. The solution to the problem that I used was to get the smail sources from our neighbor archive site and use that instead of the standard mailer that comes with xenix. Smail handles all outgoing mail and has the ability to forward all unknown mailadresses to an other system. This has worked very well for us. I even use the smail to produce a mail log for all incoming and outgoing mail on our system. The version I have used is smail 2.5. Hope that this helps you. -- ======================================================================= Jan Saell, ASK (Administration & SystemKonsult AB), Kumla, Sweden Voice: INT+46 19 82515 jan@ask.se or mcvax!sunic!unikla!jan FAX: INT+46 19 60651
lee@gdc.portal.com (Seng-Poh Lee, (203) 758-1811 Ext 7728) (01/02/91)
> The solution to the problem that I used was to get the smail sources from > our neighbor archive site and use that instead of the standard mailer that > comes with xenix. Smail handles all outgoing mail and has the ability to > forward all unknown mailadresses to an other system. > > The version I have used is smail 2.5. > Thanks to the same suggestions from other people, I have just tried Smail 2.5. But for some reason, I couldn't get the smart-host option to work correctly. I don't know what I did wrong. I compiled all the files fine, and placed them in the right directories. Local mail works fine and all the headers are correct. I made a /usr/lib/uucp/paths file with a single entry of: smart-host site!%s 0 (site is my smart neighbour) I compiled smail without sendmail option and with smart-host. If I try to mail to a domain based name, say, $ mail lee@gdc.portal.com, all I get back is mail that failed. The message is "Couldn't parse 'lee' @ 'gdc.portal.com'" or something like that. However, even if I could get this to work, the price seems to be too great. The smail mail interface doesn't have all the nifty ~ commands that the Xenix mailer has. Does anyone know if Smail 3.0 or ELM have a better mail interface? Seng-Poh Lee lee@gdc.portal.com
gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (01/02/91)
In article <206@unikla.ASK.SE> jan@unikla.ASK.SE (Jan S{ll) replies to: >>How much of my mail system do I have to upgrade just so I can type >>user@host.domain.com and have mail automatically forward it to my Internet >>neighbour? > >I have had the same problem on our system. I have a postprocessor to pathalias that I wrote which works with smail 2.5 that does exactly what the original article was interested in doing. However, right now it isn't in postable form, nor does it have any documentation. If there's interest in it, I'll clean up the source and post it. I hear there is a program that does a similar type of thing out in some archives somewhere...so it might be worthwhile to look there. My postprocessor does the following: (in short) 1. Makes my "smart-host" my MX forwarder 2. Removes any site name with a dot, causing all domain-type paths to go to the smart host. 3. Substitutes any known, popular uucp sitenames with their domain name 4. Optimizes pathnames down to their first domain-type link This way, if there's any way to do it, all mail tries to go out on the internet, except when it absolutely can't. With #3, I have replaced all instances of !uunet! with !uunet.uu.net!, and optimized the path down to uunet.uu.net!... with #4...so very rarely do I zap someone for the cost a third-party uunet transfer (except in the cases where someone is in uunet's map file as passing mail). This postprocessing concept will also effectively speed-up all net transfers as it favors using the internet rather than UUCP links, and even when a site is only receiving MX service, the mail message is moved along to that MX forwarder quickly. The path optimization shortens many of the long paths that result from the pathalias database not knowing about the interconnectivity of the internet. The postprocessor does not handle all cases, but it does a good enough job to merit using. It also eliminates the need for the awk script to put the paths file in site-path-cost order. Those interested, please drop me a note. I won't reply personally, but if I get sufficient requests, I'll post something sometime next week. -- Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@limbic.ssdl.com ...!ames!limbic!gil Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas "There are beautiful people I wish would have never opened their mouths, because such ugliness oozes out." Philosophy Prof. at NYIT
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (01/04/91)
In article <1048@gdc.portal.com> lee@gdc.portal.com (Seng-Poh Lee, (203) 758-1811 Ext 7728) writes: >However, even if I could get this to work, the price seems to be too great. The >smail mail interface doesn't have all the nifty ~ commands that the Xenix >mailer has. Does anyone know if Smail 3.0 or ELM have a better mail interface? You aren't supposed to interact directly with smail (either 2.5 or 3.1). In a sysV environment you would typically move /bin/mail to /bin/lmail, install smail as /bin/rmail, and install a small front-end program as /bin/mail to look at the command line arguments and decide whether you want to send mail or read it, and invoke the appropriate program. You would normally use mailx or ELM to read and compose mail and those programs should be configured to run /bin/rmail (now smail) to deliver your messages. Xenix is a bit different, but there should be some discussion of the setup in the smail distribution, along with the mail front end program. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us