sendmail or smail3 or ...?

sendmail or smail3 or ...?

Post by Chris Davi » Fri, 08 Nov 1991 20:23:32



We've just got ourselves a Sys V.4 UNIX box.  Unfortunately its mail
system is a little strange.  Don't get me wrong, it works OK - except

daemon transmogrifies addresses into uucp format  :-(

I want to install elm on the new system, and I don't want the users to

to have to replace the whole mail subsystem...

Our current UNIXes (Sys V.3 ish) run elm as the MUA, with sendmail as
the MTA.  We use SMTP inhouse with UUCP connections to the outside
world.  On the gateway we use smail 2 as the UUCP router.

This Sys V.4 machine only need to understand SMTP (it's not going to be
the UUCP gateway), so do I go for sendmail (which I understand), or
something else like smail 3 or mmdf (neither of which I understand).

We don't run a nameserver, and we're not likely to for several months
yet either.  Source code must be available.  Does this rule out
IDA-sendmail?

Comments please.  I'll summarise email if it looks like it'll be
useful.

Chris
--
         VISIONWARE LTD, 57 Cardigan Lane, LEEDS LS4 2LE, England

------------ "VisionWare:   The home of DOS/SQL/UNIX/X integration" -----------

 
 
 

sendmail or smail3 or ...?

Post by Ronald S. Ka » Sat, 09 Nov 1991 14:57:53



>This Sys V.4 machine only need to understand SMTP (it's not going to be
>the UUCP gateway), so do I go for sendmail (which I understand), or
>something else like smail 3 or mmdf (neither of which I understand).

Smail3 development is now done under SVR4, so it is more likely to
work "out-of-the-box" then the others, I suppose.
--



 
 
 

sendmail or smail3 or ...?

Post by ISDN Will Never Occu » Sat, 09 Nov 1991 00:19:28



> We've just got ourselves a Sys V.4 UNIX box.  Unfortunately its mail
> system is a little strange.  Don't get me wrong, it works OK - except

> daemon transmogrifies addresses into uucp format  :-(

Chris --

which SVR4 ?? there's about 20 vendors out there. DELL's SVR4 sendmail
works fine for this, straight out of the box. We even include 2 sets
of .cf's, one for a UUCP site, and another for an Internet site.

--

============================================

 
 
 

sendmail or smail3 or ...?

Post by Chris Davi » Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:06:48



> We've just got ourselves a Sys V.4 UNIX box.  Unfortunately its mail
> system is a little strange.  Don't get me wrong, it works OK - except

> daemon transmogrifies addresses into uucp format  :-(


(Steven C. Blair "ISDN Will Never Occur") writes:

Quote:>which SVR4 ?? there's about 20 vendors out there. DELL's SVR4 sendmail
>works fine for this, straight out of the box. We even include 2 sets
>of .cf's, one for a UUCP site, and another for an Internet site.

Ooops.  I'm usually quick off the mark to criticise others for failing
to provide detailed information...

It's Interactive's version.  The output from 'uname -a' is "poohbear
poohbear 4.0 3.0 i386 386/AT".

NCR V.4 is the same, as is ICL's, so (from my sample of three vendors)
I'd assumed V.4 was the same everywhere.  It appears that your company
has more regard for existing system administrators than some others..!

Chris
--
         VISIONWARE LTD, 57 Cardigan Lane, LEEDS LS4 2LE, England

------------ "VisionWare:   The home of DOS/SQL/UNIX/X integration" -----------

 
 
 

sendmail or smail3 or ...?

Post by Tony L. Hans » Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:41:36



< We've just got ourselves a Sys V.4 UNIX box.  Unfortunately its mail
< system is a little strange.  Don't get me wrong, it works OK - except

< daemon transmogrifies addresses into uucp format  :-(

Read the manual for smtpd

        -r      This option causes smtpd to not rewrite the addresses in
                From:, To:, Cc:, and Bcc: lines into host!user style.
                Normally, these addresses are rewritten in order to
                accommodate other mail software which cannot handle

Add this option to where smtpd is invoked.


                                        Tony Hansen

                                att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony

 
 
 

sendmail or smail3 or ...?

Post by Chris Davi » Sun, 17 Nov 1991 01:31:33




>< We've just got ourselves a Sys V.4 UNIX box.  Unfortunately its mail
>< system is a little strange.  Don't get me wrong, it works OK - except

>< daemon transmogrifies addresses into uucp format  :-(

>Read the manual for smtpd
>    -r      This option causes smtpd to not rewrite the addresses in
>            From:, To:, Cc:, and Bcc: lines into host!user style.

Not on this Interactive V.4 box.  There is no '-r' flag.  However, my
latest inspection has shown "/etc/mail/mailsurr" which looks like a
ghastly version of a sendmail.cf file - but different, of course.  I'm
currently investigating this one.

Good.

Chris
--
         VISIONWARE LTD, 57 Cardigan Lane, LEEDS LS4 2LE, England

------------ "VisionWare:   The home of DOS/SQL/UNIX/X integration" -----------

 
 
 

1. Smail3.1.19 on UUNET is really Smail3.1.18???

   I recently grabbed a copy of (alleged) Smail3.1.19 off of the
directory (~/mail) on UUNET.  After untar'ing the file, I find that
the version header files show that it is patch level 18.

   So, whats the real story?  Is uunet!~/mail/smail3.1.19.Z really
patchlevel 18 or is it 19?  And what is the most recent patch?

   So far Smail3.19 looks like it does everything one could want it to
do, but the patchlevel stuff is a little confusing...

--

                   Copper Electronics, Inc.
                   Louisville, Ky
UUCP: !uunet!coplex!dean

2. Some Comments on TWX, Telex and WU Time Service

3. Beginner's Guide to 'sendmail' (and 'smail3')?

4. An SBS 2000 installation that isn't

5. smtp-problem: smail3.1.28 -> sendmail (AIX)

6. Filters in 3.0 beta??

7. Table Totals

8. Moving from Smail3 to V8 sendmail

9. smail3

10. smail3 .vacation file

11. smail3.1.28 & security

12. smail3 returning undeliverable email