Dante_A_Nicolello@cup.portal.com (10/15/90)
I am trying to set up smail to send all my uucp transfers to another system for address revision. I set the SMARTHOST=smart-host in the /etc/default/smail file and set a smart-host (my_smart_host)!%1 in my /usr/lib/uucp/paths file. Doesn't work. Either smail or sendmail or whatever does not forward the mail. It just sends it back. Dante
rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem) (10/15/90)
Dante_A_Nicolello@cup.portal.com writes: >I am trying to set up smail to send all my uucp transfers to another >system for address revision. I set the SMARTHOST=smart-host in the >/etc/default/smail file and set a smart-host (my_smart_host)!%1 >in my /usr/lib/uucp/paths file. Doesn't work. Either smail or sendmail >or whatever does not forward the mail. It just sends it back. I'm glad to hear someone else mention this, if only as a sanity check :-). I've spent an incredible amount of time trying to make sendmail/smail work right on a new ISC 2.2 system, to no avail. Smail is just never getting invoked, it appears. Running smail directly in test mode seems to work (at least the right headers are generated locally). My configuration is ridulously simple: uunet is my only UUCP connection, and I simply want everything to go to them. The problem seems to be in getting the system to recognize domain addresses without trying to route them locally via SMTP. When using bang style addressing, everything works OK. Rolfe -- Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions rolfe@w3vh.UUCP | 17 Saint Luke's Place {uunet}!w3vh!rolfe | New York, NY 10014 (413) 528-5966 | (212) 463-0029
rot@unlisys.in-berlin.de (Robert Rothe) (10/16/90)
rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem) writes: >Dante_A_Nicolello@cup.portal.com writes: >>I am trying to set up smail to send all my uucp transfers to another >>system for address revision. I set the SMARTHOST=smart-host in the >>/etc/default/smail file and set a smart-host (my_smart_host)!%1 >>in my /usr/lib/uucp/paths file. Doesn't work. Either smail or sendmail >>or whatever does not forward the mail. It just sends it back. >I'm glad to hear someone else mention this, if only as a sanity check :-). >I've spent an incredible amount of time trying to make sendmail/smail work >right on a new ISC 2.2 system, to no avail. Smail is just never getting >invoked, it appears. Running smail directly in test mode seems to work >(at least the right headers are generated locally). >My configuration is ridulously simple: uunet is my only UUCP connection, and >I simply want everything to go to them. The problem seems to be in getting the >system to recognize domain addresses without trying to route them locally >via SMTP. When using bang style addressing, everything works OK. a while a ago i tried the same, and i think after editing the sendmail.cf file the mailers worked (so far), but the header looked horrible. i started spending hours of testings with sendmailconfigurationscripts, but in the end i found problems with domain-based addresses, (and queing of local mails via uux, if the given domain, even if it's a fake doesn't fit the real-one), i decided sendmail to be to cryptic (or non functional) and simply installed smail31, a pd-program. it simply works. (+tcp/ip) robert. -- Unlisys, Hohenzollerndamm 7, 1000 Berlin 31 --- Robert Rothe unido!fub!unlisys!rot, rot@unlisys.in-berlin.de, 030 / 211 22 55 *** Ihr werdet alle sterben. *** (hacker alias c.h)
gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (10/16/90)
Dante_A_Nicolello@cup.portal.com writes: >I am trying to set up smail to send all my uucp transfers to another >system for address revision. I set the SMARTHOST=smart-host in the >/etc/default/smail file and set a smart-host (my_smart_host)!%1 >in my /usr/lib/uucp/paths file. Doesn't work. Either smail or sendmail >or whatever does not forward the mail. It just sends it back. First problem -- the smart host should be set-up as (your-smart-host)!%s, not %1. In article <105@w3vh.UUCP> rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem) writes: >I'm glad to hear someone else mention this, if only as a sanity check :-). > >I've spent an incredible amount of time trying to make sendmail/smail work >right on a new ISC 2.2 system, to no avail. Smail is just never getting >invoked, it appears. Running smail directly in test mode seems to work >(at least the right headers are generated locally). Be careful. The smail that's on ISC systems is DIFFERENT than the smail 2.5 that's on the net. I don't know what the specific differences are because I junked the entire stock smail/sendmail configuration that was there and replaced it with smail 2.5. >My configuration is ridulously simple: uunet is my only UUCP connection, and >I simply want everything to go to them. The problem seems to be in getting the >system to recognize domain addresses without trying to route them locally >via SMTP. When using bang style addressing, everything works OK. My recommendation is to do what I did and junk that configuration as it is on the stock system. Move the old smail/sendmail/mail executables to a floppy so you have them if you need them again. Install smail according to the instructions that come with it, and you should be in business. Remember to replace the old /bin/mail with smail's svbinmail program. This will cause smail to be invoked properly for remote addresses, and the old /bin/mail (/bin/lmail) to be invoked for local addresses. I had a problem here where I have a domain, but I'm a uucp-only machine. I wanted my domained-mail to go to a particular net-neighbor who was on the internet. I solved the problem by making that net-neighbor my smart-host, and removing all the domain-style sites from my paths file. I also have a program which optimizes the paths down to the first domain-based site (which can travel over the internet to get to that destination, rather than using uucp 'hops'). If anyone is interested, I will post that program. Hope this helps. Gil. -- Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@limbic.ssdl.com ...!ames!limbic!gil Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (10/16/90)
According to rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem): >I've spent an incredible amount of time trying to make sendmail/smail work >right on a new ISC 2.2 system, to no avail. Whatever Interactive did right, from all accounts they botched Sendmail. Not that botched sendmail is easy to distinguish from standard Sendmail. [1/2 :-)] Many ISC users have reported satisfaction from completely removing ISC's Sendmail and Smail 2.5 and installing Smail 3.1, which does everything that the ISC setup is supposed to do. Get Smail 3.1 from uunet.uu.net, as ~/mail/smail3.1.19.Z. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II
staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (staff) (10/17/90)
rolfe@w3vh.UUCP (Rolfe Tessem) writes: >Dante_A_Nicolello@cup.portal.com writes: ... >>I am trying to set up smail to send all my uucp transfers to another >>system for address revision. I set the SMARTHOST=smart-host in the >>/etc/default/smail file and set a smart-host (my_smart_host)!%1 >>in my /usr/lib/uucp/paths file. Doesn't work. Either smail or sendmail >>or whatever does not forward the mail. It just sends it back. >I'm glad to hear someone else mention this, if only as a sanity check :-). >I've spent an incredible amount of time trying to make sendmail/smail work >right on a new ISC 2.2 system, to no avail. Smail is just never getting >invoked, it appears. Running smail directly in test mode seems to work >(at least the right headers are generated locally). I've fought this battle too, on my home machine with Interactive 2.2, and I have lost! I'm NO sendmail expert, but from the .cf it seemed to me that uux would be directly invoked, rather than smail. The funny thing is that when I replaced the real rmail/smail with shell scripts confirming that they had been called and then exec'ing the real programs, things got better - but not FULLY OK. In the end, I have installed smail 2.5 from the original sources (no need for sendmail, no local net in my home). Oh yes, 'deliver' was also needed, the various *mail*'s wouldn't work properly as local delivery agents. One tip which might help with smail: I think there's a bug in the release/patchlevel I'm using (maybe in Interactive's, too?), when /usr/lib/uucp/paths is VERY small, with the binary-search code in routine getpaths(): it is looking for 'smart-host', goes to the middle of the paths file, and it is the 'm' in 'smart-host'; from there on, it goes forwards, finds end-of-file, concludes that 'mart-host' is the LAST entry, and since that's alphabetically BEFORE 'smart-host', gives up! Easy to fix in source (no reason for binary lookup in such a SMALL paths file, just read it all in memory first time and linear-search through it), and just adding a dummy path to 'zulu' as the last line in paths seemed to hide the bug too, without changing the getpaths() routine. -- Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 45, Bologna, Italia Email: (work:) staff@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only; any time of day or night).
johnk@opel.COM (John Kennedy) (10/23/90)
In article <289@cadlab.sublink.ORG> staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (staff) writes:
[Description of binary search deleted]
I can concur with the binary search problem. I got around it by moving
"smart-host" away from the end of the file. Still no great solution,
but...
I had given up on getting smail from ISC or smail 2.5 from uunet to
work with smartmail. It's encouraging to see so many other failures :-).
I seem to remember my problem being one of recursively invoking the
remote mailer, with local mail never landing.
Has anyone actually got this combination to work under ISC 2.2? Maybe
we could use some clues.
--
John Kennedy johnk@opel.COM
Second Source, Inc.
Annapolis, MDrcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (10/24/90)
johnk@opel.COM (John Kennedy) writes: > I had given up on getting smail from ISC or smail 2.5 from uunet to > work with smartmail. It's encouraging to see so many other failures :-). > Has anyone actually got this combination to work under ISC 2.2? Maybe > we could use some clues. I played around with smail2.5 straight from uunet to get it to work in no-sendmail mode on ISC 2.2, which is a V.3.2. The uunet-distributed version supports it on V.2, but some conventions have changed between R2 and R3. Here's how it goes: Under V.2, prior to installing smail, rmail and mail were the same program, with the rmail invocation used to restrict to delivery. The internal check was for "rmail" or not. When installing smail, it took over the role of rmail, and the old rmail became lmail (local mail). The little svbinmail took over the role of old /bin/mail, directing to either lmail (the old mail/rmail, to read) or rmail (now nee smail, to send). Under V.3, rmail is a separate program. mail and lmail are the same, with lmail being the delivery agent, and the internal check is now for "lmail" or not. Thus the svbinmail trick doesn't quite work; it can deliver OK, but trying to read, it invokes lmail which complains that it wants to send mail. (Got it?:-) So I used a slight variant on the hack--svbinmail now invokes either rmail to send or rdmail (my invented name) to receive. The new rdmail is a link to lmail. This is a one-line change to svbinmail plus some tweaks to the installation instructions. You do want to check that you've got things plugged in right before you turn 'em on--permissions and all. These guys are a little feisty and they pass the buck a lot...if somebody passes the buck to the wrong guy, or to himself, you get much commotion and spraying-about of processes, with very little actual mail delivered. While I was at it, I also tweaked the Makefile to strip files and use the shared C library. I have seen one bizarre event, though: Sometimes sending one mail message to both a local user and a remote user causes a failure message about being unable to deliver to the local user. In spite of that, the mail is still delivered both places correctly (which is why I haven't bashed around enough to fix it yet). Anyone seen this? got a fix? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com (Jim Deitch) (10/25/90)
In article <32@opel.COM> johnk@opel.COM (John Kennedy) writes: >In article <289@cadlab.sublink.ORG> staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (staff) writes: >[Description of binary search deleted] > >I can concur with the binary search problem. I got around it by moving >"smart-host" away from the end of the file. Still no great solution, >but... > >I had given up on getting smail from ISC or smail 2.5 from uunet to >work with smartmail. It's encouraging to see so many other failures :-). > >I seem to remember my problem being one of recursively invoking the >remote mailer, with local mail never landing. > >Has anyone actually got this combination to work under ISC 2.2? Maybe >we could use some clues. > >-- >John Kennedy johnk@opel.COM >Second Source, Inc. >Annapolis, MD I had it working for a little while, about 2 weeks or so, then moved to smail3. It is so much easier to use and maintain. I don't remeber exactly what I did to make it work. I think I remeber hearing on the net to not do an upgrade from the isc 2.2 disks, but to do a completely new install. If you did an upgrade maybe something got hosed in the works. Jim -- UUCP: {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!jadpc!jdeitch ARPA: crash!jadpc!jdeitch@nosc.mil INET: jdeitch@jadpc.cts.com
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (10/25/90)
In article <32@opel.COM> johnk@opel.COM (John Kennedy) writes: >In article <289@cadlab.sublink.ORG> staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (staff) writes: >[discussion of sendmail-under-ISC problems deleted] >Has anyone actually got this combination to work under ISC 2.2? Maybe >we could use some clues. Forget it, and get smail 3.14 from uunet (or your friendly archive site). Toss in a couple of (user readable) config files patched from the (quite complete) examples provided, and go. Took me maybe two days from download to fully operational status, including keeping up with other work. smail3 is a BREEZE compared to sendmail. I can't say enough good things about it. -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) "The esteemed gentlebeing says I called him a liar. It's true, and I regret that." Retief, in "Retiefs' Ransom" by Keith Laumer.
michael@fts1.uucp (Michael Richardson) (10/29/90)
In article <32@opel.COM> johnk@opel.COM (John Kennedy) writes: >I had given up on getting smail from ISC or smail 2.5 from uunet to >work with smartmail. It's encouraging to see so many other failures :-). I have been running smail 2.5 with ISC 2.0.2 sendmail for quite some time now. We still haven't upgraded to 2.2. >I seem to remember my problem being one of recursively invoking the >remote mailer, with local mail never landing. Make sure that /bin/lmail gets invoked with an argv[0] of lmail, rather than mail. If it detects that it is 'mail' then it assumes you are sending it and feed the message back into /usr/lib/sendmail. -- :!mcr!: | The postmaster never | So much mail, Michael Richardson | resolves twice. | so few cycles. Play: mcr@julie.UUCP Work: michael@fts1.UUCP Fido: 1:163/109.10 1:163/138 Amiga----^ - Pay attention only to _MY_ opinions. - ^--Amiga--^