john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) (12/18/88)
I just converted my system from Microport Sys V/AT to V/386. I had
been using Elm2.1 on V/AT with no problems. Apparently the rmail
program on SVR3 is sllightly different than the SVR2 version was. I
had a lot of trouble with mail/mailx kicking out "illegal option --s"
after installing Smail2.5. Luckily someone sent me a patched svbinmail.c
the take care of the -s problem. Now mail/mailx works with Smail2.5 as
does incoming stuff. Elm, however still fails. I can read mail ok but
when I go to send something, anything, I get:
/bin/rmail: illegal option --s
valid flags are cdvArRlLH:h:p:u:q:a:n:m:f:F
I know there are lots of people running SVR3 with Smail and Elm so
there must be someway to get around the problem. For the time being,
I'm back to using mailx (yuucck) for outgoing mail. If anyone has any
ideas, I would be happy to hear from them. Thanks.
John
--
John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john
1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: john@wa3wbu.uu.net
Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth) (12/20/88)
John Gayman (john@wa3wbu.UUCP) writes of an incompatibility between elm2.1 and smail2.5 on his SVR3 system. Elm passes a -s option to /bin/rmail and rmail complains it is illegal. The easiest workaround is when you Configure elm, just tell it that you're running v5 rather than v.3. I think v.3 should only be specified for SVR3 systems that aren't running smail or sendmail. The Configuration script should be more explicit here. -Dale -- Dale Farnsworth noao!asuvax!nud!df
john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) (12/20/88)
In article <1658@nud.UUCP>, df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth) writes: > John Gayman (john@wa3wbu.UUCP) writes of an incompatibility between > elm2.1 and smail2.5 on his SVR3 system. Elm passes a -s option to > /bin/rmail and rmail complains it is illegal. > > The easiest workaround is when you Configure elm, just tell it that > you're running v5 rather than v.3. I think v.3 should only be specified > for SVR3 systems that aren't running smail or sendmail. > I just tried this this morning and Elm still displays: /bin/rmail: illegal option --s With the patch to trap out the -s in svbinmail, mailx and mail now working and incoming mail to aliases is functioning fine. I was soooo used to Elm and now having to use mailx (yuucck). :-) I re-did the Configure routine and specified "v5" and re-compiled everything. I appreciate the suggestions and will try anything. Thanks. John -- John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: john@wa3wbu.uu.net Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P
rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) (12/22/88)
In article <173@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: >In article <1658@nud.UUCP>, df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth) writes: >> John Gayman (john@wa3wbu.UUCP) writes of an incompatibility between >> elm2.1 and smail2.5 on his SVR3 system. Elm passes a -s option to >> /bin/rmail and rmail complains it is illegal. >> Sendmail has it's flags defined in sysdefs.h, maybe elm2.2 and beyond should allow the parameters to rmail/mailx/smail/sendmail to be set in sysdefs.h so one doesn't have to hack up the .c files. -Rob Healey rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu
prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) (12/22/88)
In article <1658@nud.UUCP>, df@nud.UUCP (Dale Farnsworth) writes: > John Gayman (john@wa3wbu.UUCP) writes of an incompatibility between > elm2.1 and smail2.5 on his SVR3 system. Elm passes a -s option to > /bin/rmail and rmail complains it is illegal. > The easiest workaround is when you Configure elm, just tell it that > you're running v5 rather than v.3. I think v.3 should only be specified > for SVR3 systems that aren't running smail or sendmail. I run ELM 2.1 PL1 on a system with SVR3.1 and sendmail, so I think this only applies to smail, not sendmail. -- Robert Claeson, ERBE DATA AB, P.O. Box 77, S-175 22 Jarfalla, Sweden "No problems." -- Alf Tel: +46 758-202 50 EUnet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE uucp: uunet!erbe.se!rclaeson Fax: +46 758-197 20 Internet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE BITNET: rclaeson@ERBE.SE