HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: sendmail on AIX (Rs/6000) 3.2
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:16:43 GMT

SG> == G. Simon Gales <simon@ms.uky.edu> 

[sends mail to alias 'mytest' on 'rs6000', and...]
 SG> Here's the rub: the To: header of the letter contains "To:
 SG> mytest@rs6000".  The letter _does_ get delivered, I just dislike
 SG> the To: line -- I think it should say "To: zak!simon".  Shouldn't
 SG> it?  At the very least it shouldn't have added the "@rs6000" since
 SG> the destination host is not "rs6000".

Well, yes, it IS.  The mail was sent to 'mytest@rs6000', so that should
be reflected in the To: line.  That address just happens to be an alias,
so it then gets forwarded (the envelope address changes, but the To:
address doesn't).  This is the desirable behavior.

Why?  Well, what if: you're forwarding your mail from hostA (that you
used to have an account on) to hostB (that you now have an account on).
Wouldn't you rather know that the mail was sent to hostA, so you can
tell your correspondent your new address?

Or what if the alias is a mailing list request address?  What if you're
the -request person for several lists?  How do you know which one to add
a person to if they send mail to list-one-request@hostA, but the mailer
rewrites the header to 'zak!simon'?  Maybe they wanted list-two@hostB...
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: boehme@unvax.union.edu (Eric M. Boehm)
Subject: Header trouble with IDA, DECNET Phase IV and DECNET/OSI 5.1
Summary: Probably a configuration problem but the headers are not right
Keywords: DECNET/OSI Phase V Phase IV headers
Reply-To: Eric.Boehm@union.edu
Organization: Union College, Schenectady, NY
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:11:22 GMT

I am running sendmail-5.65c-IDA-1.4.4.1 under Ultrix 4.2C. When I
upgraded to 4.2c, I also installed DECNET/OSI 5.1. Unfortunately, now
mail between the Ultrix machine and our VAXcluster is not working
well. I can reply to Ultrix (sendmail w/IDA) mail from the VAXcluster,
but I cannot reply to VAX mail from the Ultrix machine.

I am relatively sure that is just a configuration problem with
decnetnodes and decnetxtable but I am not sure how to proceed.

Here is a message from the VAXcluster to the Ultrix machine:

From .dna_node.union.dnet:boehme%union_college@Union_College:.DNA_Node.UNION.DECnet.MAIL11D_V3 Thu Nov  5 15:43:51 1992
Received: from Union_College:.DNA_Node.UNION.DECnet MAIL11D_V3 by unvax.union.edu with SMTP id AA02629
  (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4 for <boehme>); Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:43:51 -0500
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:43:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199211052043.AA02629@unvax.union.edu>
From: boehme%union_college:.dna_node.union.dnet (Eric M. Boehm)
To: boehme@unvax.dnet
Subject: CLUSTER_MAIL
Status: OR

test

Here is a message from the Ultrix machine to the VAXcluster:

From:	UNVAX::"Eric.Boehm@union.edu" "Eric M. Boehm"  5-NOV-1992 15:22:14.73
To:	ann::boehme
CC:	
Subj:	test

By the way, the cluster alias is UNION. Included below are decnetnodes
and decnetxtable. GAR is the only VAXcluster node running an SMTP
mailer (Wollongong)

decnetnodes
ANN
CONAN
GAR
LUDWIG
SPAM
TED
UNVAX

decnetxtable
ANN	ann.union.edu
CONAN	conan.union.edu
GAR	gar.union.edu
LUDWIG  leopold.union.edu
SPAM	spam.union.edu
TED	ted.union.edu
UNVAX	unvax.union.edu

part of domaintable
ann.dnet ann.union.edu ann.union ann
conan.dnet conan.union.edu conan.union conan
gar.union.edu gar.union.edu gar.union gar
leopold.union.edu leopold.union.edu leopold.union leopold
spam.dnet spam.union.edu spam.union spam
ted.dnet ted.union.edu ted.union ted
unvax.union.edu unvax.union.edu unvax.union unvax

It seems that I need to make DECNET/OSI compatible entries in one or
more of the tables but I am not sure what the entries should look
like. Rather than use trial and error, I am posting this message.

Many thanks in advance for any hints or suggestions.





-- 
Eric M. Boehm
Eric.Boehm@union.edu
BOEHME@UNION.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: uddeborg@sisu.se (Goeran Uddeborg)
Subject: Re: Character conversion
Organization: Swedish Institute of Systems Development
Distribution: eunet
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:27:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.073935.17075@infolog.se> rabbe@infolog.se (Rabbe Fogelholm) writes:
>, our current
>version of "GatorMail" just translates characters in the 128-255
>range to 7-bit sequences on the form '#234#'.
>
>QUESTION: Is there any way to make the sendmail on the Unix side
>handle this automatically, by applying some kind of filter to letters
>that arrive from the QuickMail side?
>
>Our sendmail is 5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4.

We use BeaverGate rather than GatorMail.  The former doesn't do any
conversion at all, so the MAC character set is forwarded to the UNIX
side.  Then I have a MAILERTABLE for sendmail that includes an entry
of the form:

	mac.sisu.se             TCP-MAC,mac.sisu.se

which tells sendmail to use a special mailer for letters to and from
this host.  TCP-MAC is the normal TCP mailer with the added
specification of a character class to use:

MTCP-MAC, P=[IPC], F=CDFMXhnmu, E=\r\n, R=10/11, S=11, A=IPC $h, C=MAC, X=29
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: IDA rulesets
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:40:18 GMT

In article <1dbdqnINN3b0@kiwi.atk.vtt.fi> keijo@kiwi.atk.vtt.fi (Keijo Tuominen) writes:
>
>Which rulesets I should run when testing the final output of CC-field.
>
>My TCP mailer look like this:
>
>R=10/11 S=11
>
>So is it:
>
>3,1,10,11,4 or what ??

For the "To:" and "Cc:" header lines, it should be:

	3,6,11,4
From: jbayer@ispi.COM (Jonathan Bayer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Configuration editor for sendmail (I need it)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:36:46 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Software Products, Inc.


Greetings,

My employers have recently gotten in a sun network, and the
administrator is now trying to setup the sendmail system.  We have a few
problems, and I know that there is an editor for the sendmail.cf file
that makes it much easier to set up.  

I have a direct connection to UUNET, and all I really need is the name
of the file(s) to get.  Please do not send me source code (although if
you are willing please let me know in case I need it).

Thanks in advance.


JB
-- 
Jonathan Bayer		Intelligent Software Products, Inc.
(908) 248-1853		37 Winthrop Rd. 
jbayer@ispi.COM		Edison, NJ   08817
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: bruce@blilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly)
Subject: Re: IDA sendmail chops off From: lines
Keywords: IDA
Organization: Bruce Lilly
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 15:17:37 GMT

In article <reed.720985245@shaman.nexagen.com> reed@shaman.nexagen.com (Jim Reed) wrote:
>I have compiled IDA sendmail 5.65c on my SGI IRIX4.0.1 and
>it chops off the from lines, making elm bomb.  

Are you sure that sendmail is the cause of your problem?
What *specifically* is the problem?
	Do you mean RFC822 From: headers, or do you mean
		rmail "From " lines?
	Are the lines truncated at some point, or are they
		missing entirely (``chops off'' is vague and
		ambiguous)?
	Can you supply an example?
	Can you supply more specific details of your
		installation (configuration options used to
		compile sendmail, etc.)?
	Does the problem occur with all messages, or only those
		transferred via uucp/uux/rmail?

*If* you're having "From " lines or From: headers *truncated* on
mail *received via uucp/uux/rmail*, *and if* you have not
configured your UUCP system to use rmail as a link to the
sendmail executable (i.e.  you are using some other "rmail"
program), then your problem is most likely caused by rmail, not
sendmail. In that case, linking the sendmail executable to a
file named "rmail", and instructing UUCP to use that program as
rmail (e.g. via a COMMANDS entry specifying the full path name
in HDB UUCP's Permissions file) should solve the problem.

-- 
	Bruce Lilly		blilly!bruce@Broadcast.Sony.COM
					...uunet!sonyusa!sonyd1!blilly!bruce
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: hoover@math22.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp)
Subject: BIG problem with IDA sendmail and forwarding
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:14:08 GMT
Organization: Math MadHouse Bielefeld, Germany


Dear netters,

we have got a big problem with our sendmail installation. Due to
inconsistencies I decided to switch to the concept of one "knows it
all" mailhost which takes care of the large aliases database. This
host is called

	mail.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de

and serves a net of about 30 Ultrix workstations. I set up the clients
.cf file to point to this host as the relay host and use HIDDENDOMAIN
and HIDDENDOMAINHOST keywords for hide all those stations from the
outside world. Furthermore I use a domaintable which consists of
entries similar to the following

mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de 	math22

which is supposed to tell sendmail that mail addressed to user@math22
should be sent to mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (aka mail.mathematik)
for evaluation. This works just fine, but if there's a forwarding
entry on this host where the mail is supposed to end up according to
the main database on the mailserver, I get tons of email (doesn't stop
until I kill the local daemon ) and bouncing emails ad infinitum. I
thought that an alias should not be evaluated twice, so if our
mailserver says that mail should be delivered to user@math22 and
there's a forward to math18, well, then tell math18 that the
mail's supposed to end up there according to forwarding and forget all
about domaintables etc. What am I doing wrong here? Is there a better
concept (IDA sendmail ignores Ultrix yp services) for what I am trying
to accomplish? Our setup is IDA sendmail 5.65 / 1.4.4 on Ultrix 4.2A. 
Please help, all this mail bouncing stuff is driving me mad. :-)

Please make any answers via email and I'll summarize if there's
interest.

Thanks,
	hoover
-- 
"All this traffic choking our towns freaking me out bringing me down 
Knocking down houses  build more  lanes--once was a problem now it's
insane"                       ---Luka Bloom, 'The acoustic motorbike'
Uwe 'Hoover' Schuerkamp           hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: cafapm@gaia.ecs.csus.edu (Cafapm Project)
Subject: return address and sendmail.cf
Keywords: help return-address sendmail
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Distribution: comp.mail.sendmail
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:24:05 GMT

Greetings!

  we have a sun 4/690 running SunOS 4.1.2 and i have noticed that the return
address on any mail going outside our domain is incorrect.  it appears that
'user@machine.domain' becomes 'user@domain' if the message goes outside of
our domain.  any ideas on what i did wrong?


thanks in advance!

steve kishaba
cafapm@athena.ecs.csus.edu
kishaba@empm3.cdpr.ca.gov
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: simon@ms.uky.edu (G. Simon Gales)
Subject: sendmail on AIX (Rs/6000) 3.2
Summary: Is my sendmail broken?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:53:40 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

We are on our own ethernet/tcpip network, no domain names at all.  For 
the sake of this article, let's say my AIX systems name is "rs6000".  I 
setup an alias in /usr/lib/aliases that looks like this:
	mytest: zak!simon
"zak" is my system at home, and uucp is setup to talk to it.  I ran 
"newaliases" _and_ "refresh -s sendmail".

When mail is sent to "mytest", sendmail processes it correctly, and it shows
up in the uucp queue for "zak" (you can see it with a "uustat -a").

Here's the rub: the To: header of the letter contains "To: mytest@rs6000".
The letter _does_ get delivered, I just dislike the To: line -- I think it
should say "To: zak!simon".  Shouldn't it?  At the very least it shouldn't
have added the "@rs6000" since the destination host is not "rs6000".

In short: Is this normal?  Can I fix it?  Someone please explain!

ALSO:
I just replaced the brain-dead mailer on our Xenix systems with Smail 3.127,
and the same thing happened there.  Now that I see our AIX system doing it,
I'm really confused...

Thanks,
Simon Gales
-- 
                    Simon Gales@The University of Kentucky
   simon@s.ms.uky.edu    simon@UKMA.BITNET    {rutgers, uunet}!ukma!simon

Xref: sparky comp.mail.sendmail:2689 comp.mail.uucp:2012
From: rla@media03.UUCP (Raymond van der Laan)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Sendmail makes copies
Keywords: sendmail, -f option
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:58:10 GMT
Organization: Mediasystemen, Netherlands


I am using sendmail's -f option to change the name of the sender (From).

I've noticed that sometimes (can't exactly tell when) the new sender
(the name after the -f) gets a copy of the mail in his mailbox too.
So, if I issue 'sendmail -ffoo bar', both users foo and bar get exactly
the same message in their mailboxes (even the message-id is the same).
I suspect sendmail of doing this.

My questions are:  1. Under what circumstances/conditions does sendmail
					  decide to do so?
                   2. Can I stop this behaviour and if so, how?

I hope someone can and will answer them. Thanks ahead.

-- 
Raymond van der Laan           Email: sun4nl!media01!rla
Mediasystemen BV               Tel. : +31 23-319075            
Haarlem                        Fax  : +31 23-315210
The Netherlands                                   
                                    'There is no masterplan.
                                     This is what we do now.'
                                            - Stuart Adamson
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: smail3 release 28 force-route
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:19:03 GMT

In article <Bx59A9.BIs@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>I am running the latest release of smail3
>all connections are uucp
>how can I force the rerouting of all traffic based
>on my paths database?

Smail3.28 has a rerouting driver.  Read the comments in routers/reroute.c
(and the warnings against using the "matchall" attribute).  If you
don't set matchall you must prepare a database of domain and site names
with an indication of whether to reroute for that name or not.  The
given path is scanned backwards until a site with a re-reroute indication
is found and then anything to the left is discarded and the remaining
portion is reparsed by smail's routers.   Even if you are against
rerouting in general you can use this technique to temporarily correct
temporary problems or you can set the "bounceonly" attibute to
allow it to fix the return path on error bounces.  For example if you
have a "smart_user" host whose alias file is out of sync with another
machine's users, the two will bounce mail back and forth until the
Received: line count exceeds the maximum.  Without the rerouting
driver the bounce message will follow the same 20-hop path back and forth
to the sender.

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: ltodd@cass.ma02.bull.com (Larry Todd)
Subject: Sendmail question
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:59:09 GMT

I have been experiencing some severe slow downs on my system lately that
I believe are related to some sort of problem with sendmail.  I have
not got a complete handle on the problems yet but I do have a question.
It seems that whenever the system gets constipated I see error messages
on my syslog indicating receipt of a "421" command by my sendmail.  The
line actually looks like this:

Nov 10 01:02:29 sysnam sendmail[13168]: "421" command unrecognized

I know that 421 is a valid response within SMTP but I cannot find any
indication of it being a command.

Any thoughts?

Larry Todd  Bull World Wide Information Systems
l.todd@ma02.bull.com
From: jst@inews.intel.com (Jason Thomasser)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Rewriting sender address - help?
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:10:48 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

instead of rewriting rule set 3 take a closer look at the
sender and receiving rulesets specific to the mail e.g ddn.
rule set 3 is a bear and usually something you don't want to 
fiddle with. There should be a reference on the mailer line 
(starts with M) and something like S=14 and R=24. Those rule
sets deal with the specifics of rewriting your header lines.
By the way, this message originating from ibm, a quick question:
How do you enable AIX3.2.2 to do mail.aliases NIS lookups?

Jason

 Jason Thomasser                          | Thomasser Enterprise Networks
 jst@netcom.com                           | 139 School St #3
 IP WAN/LAN, DNS, Sendmail, NIS, NNTP     | Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (408)458-0379
From: is@groucho.dev.uga.edu (Bob Stearns)
Subject: IDA on SYSVr4 especially ESIX 4.0.4
Organization: University of Georgia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:43:36 GMT

Has anyone gotten IDA compiled on System V Release 4, especially the
ESIX flavor? I am currently trying 5.65c and just losing what few hairs
I have due to various compilation problems. If you have done this or
know someone who has, I would greatly appreciate a pointer. Thanks for
your attention.
-- 
Bob Stearns
University of Georgia
is@groucho.dev.uga.edu
(404)542-5110
From: tron@Veritas.COM (Ronald S. Karr)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: smail3 release 28 force-route
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:32:28 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <1d7vqlINNo4q@daisy.ee.und.ac.za> barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett) writes:
>In article <Bx59A9.BIs@gator.rn.com>,
>larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>> [Using smail3] how can I force the rerouting of all traffic based
>> on my paths database?
>
>I assume that "rerouting" refers to the practice of ignoring most or
>all of the explicit routing information attached to an address that
>arrives at your system.  I consider rerouting to be Evil and Rude(TM),
>but many others consider it to be necessary.  Smail3 cannot do rerouting.

Actually, smail3 (as of release 3.1.28) can do rerouting.  The
rerouting is controlled through the rerouter driver, which is currently
considered experimental.  I strongly recommend restrictive rerouting,
or no rerouting at all.  It is better to limit rerouting to a specific
set of known domains.  The rerouter driver supports a list of hosts and
domains that are candidates for rerouting.

The rerouting that is currently used is, I believe, too aggressive for
most situations.  Given a !-path, it is based on the right-most match
from the list of candidates.

The rerouter driver is described in the smail(5) man page.
-- 
	tron |-<=>-|		ARPAnet:  veritas!tron@apple.com
      tron@veritas.com		UUCPnet:  {apple,pyramid}!veritas!tron
From: ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: file locking after forks in sendmail 5.65
Keywords: locking files in 5.65
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:10:12 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

I ran into a problem of recipients complaining of receiving 2 copies of the
same mail.  Careful examination of the headers and the syslogs led me to
conclude that if a user had the misfortune of sending mail at the very
instant the system's sendmail daemon woke up to check the queue, the mail
would end up getting delivered twice.

After reproducing the problem on a test machine, I realized that locking on
queue files in the spool directory was not working on our system.  We're
SVR3.2 on the outside and fault tolerant & proprietary on the inside (which
leaves the possibility the OS folks blew it).

Further testing showed me that the reason that locking was not working was
because during the delivery phase, sendmail locks the queue file, builds all
the other things it needs to - like the body of the message, forks, closes
the queue file and exits, leaving the child to complete final delivery.
After the fork, the queue file is wide open to any process that wishes to
lock it again, including the child.  Reading the SVR3.2 manual page on fork,
it explicitly states:

 The child process differs from the parent process in the
 following ways:
      ...
   Process locks, text locks and data locks are not
   inherited by the child [see plock(2)].
      ...

By adding code to have the child (actually its the child of the child)
re-lock the queue file, the locking is mostly preserved.  If the child cannot
lock the file, the daemon must have got there first.  In any case, the files
are in the spool directory, where they'll get sent eventually, hopefully.

Has anyone else noticed this issue, especially when debugging a problem,
and dealt with it?  How about the BSD (and their ilk) folks.  I don't have
a fork manual page from a BSD system handy (probably should...) so I can
only guess that BSD systems hand down file locks to children, which could
be a real mess if both parent & child choose to write to the same file.  

I'm especially cursious what other bugs may be lurking in a sendmail ported
V.3 or V.4, either becaues of this issue about locking across System V
forks or anything else.  (For instance I'm still not sure how much frozen
configs are going to be tolerated by shared libraries.)
-- 
when everyone is out to get you, being paranoid is just good thinking.
         - Dr. Johnny Fever <in other words, standard disclaimer>
A.J. Madison                                           ajm@sequoia.com
Sequoia Systems Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: per@erix.ericsson.se (Per Hedeland)
Subject: Re: SunOS sendmail and OR flag
Nntp-Posting-User: per
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:51:18 GMT

In article <2169@osiris.bosch.de>, grant@iva.k8.rt.bosch.de (Joseph C. Grant K8/IVA3 Tel. ++49-7121-35-2981) writes:
|> In article 26521@newsgate.sps.mot.com, embry@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Mike Embry) writes:
|> >Does anybody know what process sendmail is going through on a Sun when using the OR
|> >flag?  I'd like to have all mail from root in the form root@hostname.  This is 
|> >the default if you are running sendmail in the background daemon mode and are
|> >using sendmail.subsidiary.cf as your sendmail.cf.  However, when the OR flag (relay
|> >all mail to another host) is used sendmail seems to ignore the sendmail.cf file so
|> >all mail from daemons, etc is simply addressed to root.
|> >
|> >Any ideas, anyone?  Short of stop using the OR option?
|> >
|> 
|> As I understand it, the R option instucts SunOS sendmail to forward all mail
|> to the machine where the /usr/spool/mail directory is mounted from once it has
|> finished all other processing.

No, the R option instructs SunOS sendmail to forward all mail *without*
doing (almost) any processing, i.e. the sendmail.cf (apart from the OR
line) is ignored, as the original poster suspected.

--Per Hedeland
per@erix.ericsson.se  or
per%erix.ericsson.se@sunic.sunet.se  or
...uunet!erix.ericsson.se!per
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: boyd@prl.dec.com (Boyd Roberts)
Subject: Re: Shortcut for a long email-address ..
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:52:22 GMT

In article <16897D0A1.I5072001@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I5072001@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de writes:
>  
> /S=GUEST.TI/OU=R05F03D57A/PRMD=USDA.FS.X400/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
>  

What we have here is X.400 -- everybody loses.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@prl.dec.com

``Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad.''  -- Rob Pike