proot@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Paul T. Root) (08/12/90)
I am evaluating an RS/6000 and am getting really sick of the bogus bounced mail messages I get whenever mail is received. The machine is hooked to a network of Suns and is running yp as a client. When uucp mail is received it gets upset that there is no @ in the path. As its been a long while since I've gotten elbow deep into sendmail.cf, I thought I'd check here to see if anyone else had fixed this problem. I basically like the machine a lot. But the little things like this and the ypbind/inetd problem really leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Paul.
jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel) (08/13/90)
In article <1990Aug12.031309.15691@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> proot@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Paul T. Root) writes: [ ...disgruntled over mail problems...] >When uucp mail is received it gets upset that there is no @ in the path. ^^^^^^^^^^ Your technical report of the problem :-} makes it difficult to know how to help you! >As its been a long while since I've gotten elbow deep into sendmail.cf, >I thought I'd check here to see if anyone else had fixed this problem. I don't know much about 3.1's sendmail, other than that its still based on the older AIX code with MX support put in (browsed through the code at some point). However, I don't believe that its anything but a cf configuration problem. But before anyone can do much we would need to see copies of the bounced headers, and perhaps a copy of your cf file. We at Locus do not do 6000 support, but if you can't get some help out of the official support channels I try and keep IBM customers happy so send me some email and I'll see what I can do, fair enough? Cheers! Disclaimer: I am just a lowly programmer, I don't speak for LCC or IBM, but then, I get to have all the fun :-}! -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM
jeffe@sandino.austin.ibm.com (Peter Jeffe 512.823.4091) (08/13/90)
In article <1990Aug12.031309.15691@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> proot@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Paul T. Root) writes: >I am evaluating an RS/6000 and am getting really sick of the bogus bounced >mail messages I get whenever mail is received. What is bogus about them? sendmail bounces mail with the standard returned mail message, including a transcript section indicating what went wrong (which would have helped us resolve this problem if you had bothered to post it). >The machine is hooked to a network of Suns and is running yp as a client. >When uucp mail is received it gets upset that there is no @ in the path. Unless you've hacked with the sendmail.cf file, this is unlikely. When uucp mail arrives, uucico hands it off to /bin/rmail, which hands it to sendmail. If the mail is destined for a local user, it had better *not* have an '@' in it (unless the hostname is the local one); if it is destined for another uucp node, then it had better have a '!' (or .UUCP) in it: in this case, sendmail will hand it back to uux for further processing. >I basically like the machine a lot. But the little things like this and >the ypbind/inetd problem really leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I think that if you would provide us with some real information about your problem, you'd find that it's probably a simple configuration issue. As for the ypbind/inetd bug, it was straight from BSD4.3 tahoe, and has probably been in inetd since it was written. Apparently other machines are more lenient about letting you step around memory without causing segmentation violations, which is why it hasn't yet been fixed in the Berkeley code. I should think you would be impressed that IBM developers were able to fix this bug within 48 hours of its being reported, after it's been hanging around in BSD code since the epoch :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Jeffe ...uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!sandino.austin.ibm.com!jeffe first they want a disclaimer, then they make you pee in a jar, then they come for you in the night
geoff@edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman) (08/14/90)
From article <1990Aug12.223057.18818@turnkey.tcc.com>, by jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel): > In article <1990Aug12.031309.15691@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> proot@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Paul T. Root) writes: > [ ...disgruntled over mail problems...] > >>When uucp mail is received it gets upset that there is no @ in the path. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Your technical report of the problem :-} makes it difficult to know how > to help you! > >>As its been a long while since I've gotten elbow deep into sendmail.cf, >>I thought I'd check here to see if anyone else had fixed this problem. > I to saw the same problem when I first installed the OS in our 6000. The message is a no @ in the SMTP address error. Seeing as the path given to mail was machine!user I didn't expect to see an @. I played around with the cf file with no luck so I took the easy way out and put smail 3.1 on the box. Right now I'm wary of anything that uses UUCP. I came across a problem today with uux. On our System V (actualy CTIX 6) we do remote prinitng by putting the line uux -c machine!lp !$file in the interface file in place of the usual cat $file line. When sending files to the 6000 for this it returns a message to uucp account that the spooler can't find /usr/spool/uucp/.Xqtdir/<filename>. Any ideas on this one. As well in there documentation they say that uux -C machine!command file operates on file on the local machine. Does it not need a ! in front to tell it it's on the local machine????? Geoff Coleman Unexsys Systems p.s. the solution to my first problem was to have uux takes it input from stdin ie. cat $file | uux -c - machine!lp
jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel) (08/17/90)
In article <1990Aug14.044632.13957@edm.uucp> geoff@edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman) writes: >From article <1990Aug12.223057.18818@turnkey.tcc.com>, by jackv@turnkey.tcc.com (Jack F. Vogel): >> In article <1990Aug12.031309.15691@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> proot@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Paul T. Root) writes: >>>When uucp mail is received it gets upset that there is no @ in the path. > I to saw the same problem when I first installed the OS in our >6000. The message is a no @ in the SMTP address error. Seeing as the path >given to mail was machine!user I didn't expect to see an @. I played around >with the cf file with no luck so I took the easy way out and put smail 3.1 >on the box. Paul and I have subsequently exchanged email over this problem. The real problem is that somehow a normal uucp style address is resolving to the tcp mailer. SMTP has every right to complain about a uucp style address. What I couldn't determine with what Paul gave me was why these addresses were getting sent to the tcp mailer, but careful tracing through the rulesets should show that. I am still convinced its just a configuration problem, not a broken sendmail. Disclaimer: I don't speak for LCC or IBM. -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM
karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) (08/17/90)
In article <1990Aug14.044632.13957@edm.uucp> geoff@edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman) writes: >> In article <1990Aug12.031309.15691@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> proot@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Paul T. Root) writes: >>>When uucp mail is received it gets upset that there is no @ in the path. > > I to saw the same problem when I first installed the OS in our >6000. The message is a no @ in the SMTP address error. Seeing as the path >given to mail was machine!user I didn't expect to see an @. I played around >with the cf file with no luck so I took the easy way out and put smail 3.1 >on the box. I saw this message when I used bang paths on a machine that had no actual UUCP connections, but was supposed to forward mail to a `smart host' that has UUCP links. It complained about outgoing mail; I never saw the problem on incoming, but I never tried to provoke it. Using 'user@host.uucp' did the trick; a simple rewriting rule in sendmail.cf could have done it for me. > Right now I'm wary of anything that uses UUCP. I came across a >problem today with uux. On our System V (actualy CTIX 6) we do remote >prinitng by putting the line > >uux -c machine!lp !$file > >in the interface file in place of the usual cat $file line. > >When sending files to the 6000 for this it returns a message to uucp account >that the spooler can't find /usr/spool/uucp/.Xqtdir/<filename>. Any ideas on >this one. As well in there documentation they say that The file is probably owned by uucp and denies read/write access to group and others, including the `daemon' or `lpd' user and the `printq' group. If the file exists at all; if the command below is an example of what you're trying to do, I'm not sure it should exist. >uux -C machine!command file operates on file on the local machine. Does it >not need a ! in front to tell it it's on the local machine????? If you use uux, the machine is really going to try to do a uucp transfer. Unless your machine has a line with its own name in its Systems file, telling it how to call itself, nothing you put on the command line should cause uux to execute a local command. The -C flag is documented to cause the file named on the command line to be copied to the public spool directory on the local machine when the command request is spooled for later execution. It has nothing to do with executing commands on the local host. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
jeffe@sandino.austin.ibm.com (Peter Jeffe 512.823.4091) (08/18/90)
In article <1990Aug14.044632.13957@edm.uucp> geoff@edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman) writes: > [ Paul Root's problems with uucp mail ] > I to saw the same problem when I first installed the OS in our >6000. The message is a no @ in the SMTP address error. Seeing as the path >given to mail was machine!user I didn't expect to see an @. I played around >with the cf file with no luck so I took the easy way out and put smail 3.1 >on the box. OK, to clear this mess up, the AIX 3.1 sendmail definitely has a problem dealing with non-domain addresses in special cases. If either a sender or recipient address doesn't have a '@' in it, but ruleset 0 resolves it to the tcp mailer, then sendmail complains with a "No '@' found in SMTP recipient" error. This should only happen if you are routing uucp (or local) mail through an smtp host, e.g. if you have defined the U macro. Otherwise, it handles uucp and other mail just fine. This problem will be fixed in the September update. > Right now I'm wary of anything that uses UUCP. I came across a >problem today with uux. On our System V (actualy CTIX 6) we do remote >prinitng by putting the line > >uux -c machine!lp !$file >... >When sending files to the 6000 for this it returns a message to uucp account >that the spooler can't find /usr/spool/uucp/.Xqtdir/<filename>. This sounds like a uucp problem that will be fixed in the September update, but the way to find out is to report it to IBM. In both these cases, if you would call the problem in to IBM service, then they will open a record on it, and customer problems get the *highest* priority for resolution around here. If anyone has had any frustrations with this process, or has any reasons why they choose not to report problems, please let me know and I'll try to apply heat to the proper areas. Basically, reporting a problem ensures that: 1) it gets immediate atttention (if I didn't read this group, the sendmail bug wouldn't have gotten into the Sept. update); 2) it doesn't fall through the cracks; 3) and MOST IMPORTANT, you can get immediate fixes if you need them bad enough. I can't think of any reason to go through all the frustrations of dealing with broken software when one phone call could get you up and running within days. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Jeffe ...uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!sandino.austin.ibm.com!jeffe first they want a disclaimer, then they make you pee in a jar, then they come for you in the night
jeffe@sandino.austin.ibm.com (Peter Jeffe 512.823.4091) (08/22/90)
In article <9008170856.AA12741@mindcrf.mindcraft.com> karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) writes: >> I to saw the same problem when I first installed the OS in our >>6000. The message is a no @ in the SMTP address error. Seeing as the path >>given to mail was machine!user I didn't expect to see an @. I played around >>with the cf file with no luck so I took the easy way out and put smail 3.1 >>on the box. > > I saw this message when I used bang paths on a machine that had > no actual UUCP connections, but was supposed to forward mail > to a `smart host' that has UUCP links. It complained about > outgoing mail; I never saw the problem on incoming, but I never > tried to provoke it. Using 'user@host.uucp' did the trick; > a simple rewriting rule in sendmail.cf could have done it for me. Sorry for not posting a work-around when I first described the problem. Since sendmail is looking for an '@' in any recipients that use the tcp mailer (this is the bug), you can fool it by adding a source route in ruleset 0 where the uucp relay is handled. This is the diff to sendmail.cf: 171c171 < #DUHostWithModems --- > DUlopnor 1024c1024 < R<$+>!$+ $?U$#tcp$@$U$:<$1>!$2$|$#uucp$@$1$:<$2>$. --- > R<$+>!$+ $?U$#tcp$@$U$:<@$U:><$1>!$2$|$#uucp$@$1$:<$2>$. ^^^^^^ Where the "<@$U:>" source route satisfies the check for the '@', while the uucp relay host ($U) should recognize it as itself and just strip it. Please let me know if there are other problems that this doesn't fix. As I said before, the bug will be fixed in the September update. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Jeffe ...uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!sandino.austin.ibm.com!jeffe first they want a disclaimer, then they make you pee in a jar, then they come for you in the night