[rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp

Wed Aug 8 12:44:36 EDT 2001

Why you don't want it to resolve , it should. If emails can reach your
system, then what's the difference if host.yourdomain.com exist. And if you
really want to receive mail for underlivery reports, you add an alias or an
account and its done. 5 mins, and save valu$able time. :) But its up to you,
i dont work there ! Good luck in fixing that.

__
Steve Poirier
Inet Technologies Inc.
http://www.inet-technologies.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rafael Corvalan" <Rafael.Corvalan at linkvest.com>
To: "Steve Poirier" <steve at inet-technologies.com>
Sent: August 8, 2001 12:44
Subject: RE: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp

> Yes, I could, but this is not really a good solution...
> Why?
> 1st because this means that every Unix host I have that send mails from
> inside my comany should have a DNS resolution on the EXTERNAL DNS (I
> would prefer to avoid that).
> 2nd because the e-mail address sent in "MAIL FROM:" is called the
> "reverse-path" and that the reverse path is used to non-delivery reports
> (RFC 2821 §3.7). So, this address, should really be a VALID address,
> prferably the address of the RT administrator. Configuring sendmail, I
> could set for example "postmaster at mydomain.com", replacing my domain by
> my real domainname, but this implies that every non-delivery report will
> be sent to the postmaster, and not to the RT Administrator, and if other
> utilities are running on the same host, they share the
> /etc/sendmail.cf....
>
> Yeah, not simple. I'm still thinking on a real solution ;-)))
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Poirier [mailto:steve at Inet-technologies.com]
> Sent: mercredi, 8. août 2001 18:22
> To: Rafael Corvalan
> Subject: Re: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp
>
>
> Ok i understand what you're talking about is it that:
> 220 max.inet-interactif.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.9.3/8.9.3; Wed, 8 Aug 2001
> 12:29:16 -0400
> helo steve
> 250 max.inet-interactif.com Hello root at ns2.inet-interactif.com
> [216.218.2.249], pleased to meet you
> mail from: nobody at jfdkjfkdjf.bog
> 501 nobody at jfdkjfkdjf.bog... Sender domain must exist
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> And your prob is:
>
> > > > rejects such messages since myhost.mydomain.com does not resolve
> on
> > > > the DNS (myhost is into the company network, and not on the DMZ
> > > > neither the internet).
>
> There is no way you can make the host to be resolved?? I don;t really
> understand what you mean about your host is on the company network..)
>
> __
> Steve Poirier
> Inet Technologies Inc.
> http://www.inet-technologies.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rafael Corvalan" <Rafael.Corvalan at linkvest.com>
> To: "Steve Poirier" <steve at inet-technologies.com>
> Cc: <rt-users at lists.fsck.com>
> Sent: August 8, 2001 11:22
> Subject: RE: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp
>
>
> > Hi Steve,
> > The real problem is not about "nobody", it's really on the domain
> name.
> > Try sending an e-mail with the "MAIL FROM:" set to
> > <steve at dummy.inet-technologies.com> to anything at ubp.ch (a private
> > bank....).
> > Your mail will be rejected because "dummy.inet-technologies.com" is
> not
> > known to the DNS...
> > And if your sendmail is configured to set "localhost", it's even worst
> I
> > think ;-)))
> >
> > It's just that some mail servers, to avoid spamming, check that the
> > "MAIL FROM:" adress has a domain name known on DNS.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Rafael
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Poirier [mailto:steve at Inet-technologies.com]
> > Sent: mercredi, 8. août 2001 17:07
> > To: Rafael Corvalan
> > Cc: rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > Subject: Re: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp
> >
> >
> > Hi Rafael,
> > Well i don't really think it's a problem. A lot of our mailing scripts
> > use sendmail and yes its true, in the header it's always
> > 'apache-user'@localhost for example, but we don't use nobody for RT.
> To
> > not use nobody, what we do is we run another apache configured on
> > another port with user rt. RT process are big, and it give us the
> > opportunity to run a standard apache server 80 on this machine that
> > don;t ned to handle RT for each external requests not related to RT.
> (I
> > know its bad to not use nobody but the machine is very
> > secure)
> > __
> > Steve Poirier
> > Inet Technologies Inc.
> > http://www.inet-technologies.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rafael Corvalan" <Rafael.Corvalan at linkvest.com>
> > To: "Steve Poirier" <steve at inet-technologies.com>
> > Cc: <rt-users at lists.fsck.com>
> > Sent: August 8, 2001 03:27
> > Subject: RE: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp
> >
> >
> > > Hello Steve,
> > > "mydomain" was just an example to avoid putting my real domain name.
> > > In my case you cas replace it with "linkvest.com".
> > >
> > > My config.pm is correctly setup, all the e-mail sent go with the
> > > "From:" field set to "rtXXX at linkvest.com". The problem is not the
> > > "From:" field that is correctly set by RT, but the "MAIL FROM:
> <...>"
> > > in the SMTP connection. sendmail sets the "MAIL FROM:" to the
> > > username at myhost.mydomain (in my case (nobody at rt.linkvest.com), since
> > > RT apache runs as "nobody" and the host where it runs is
> > > "rt.linkvest.com"). There is no way to change this unless sendmail
> is
> > > used with the -f parameter. Iy you are root, no problem. But if you
> > > aren't, some sendmail version correctly sets the "MAIL FROM:" in the
> > > SMTP connection, but adds a header X-Authentication-Warning to tell
> > > "hey man, maybe youe are not who you tell you are".
> > >
> > > Let's take a simple example:
> > >
> > > I am the user "rco" loged on "lynx.mydomain.com":
> > >
> > > [lynx | rco] ~ > /usr/sbin/sendmail test at sun.com
> > > From: <dummy at mydomain.com>
> > > Hello !
> > > <CTRL-D>
> > >
> > >
> > > The mail is sent to test at sun.com ant it IS from
> "dummy at mydomain.com".
> > > But if you sniff the connection, you will see:
> > >
> > >
> > > MAIL FROM: <rco at lynx.mydomain.com>
> > > <... cutted ...>
> > > From: <dummy at mydomain.com>
> > > <... cutted ...>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's all....
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Rafael
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Steve Poirier [mailto:steve at inet-technologies.com]
> > > Sent: mercredi, 8. août 2001 04:58
> > > To: Rafael Corvalan
> > > Cc: rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > Subject: Re: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp
> > >
> > >
> > > Wll i think there are some things in your config that are not
> > > correctly setuop.
> > >
> > > We have 8 queues for 8 different products and every replies are sent
> > > with the correct email corresponding to the queue not
> > > nobody at mydomain.com. I don't remember when i was configuring the
> > > system but "mydomain" sounds like a variable that you did not
> > > configured.
> > >
> > > There is something like this in config.pm:
> > >
> > > #This is the default address that will be listed in
> > > #From: and Reply-To: headers of mail tracked by RT unless overridden
> > > #by a queue specific address
> > >
> > > $CorrespondAddress="RT::rt\@rt2.inet-technologies.com";
> > >
> > > $CommentAddress="RT::rtcomment\@rt2.inet-technologies.com";
> > >
> > > So if you dont have configured queues, maybe its there you have a
> > > nobody at mydomain... Read the docs carrefully and go through each
> lines
> > > of config.pm to be *sure* everything is configured properly.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > __
> > > Steve Poirier
> > > Project manager
> > > Inet-Technologies inc.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rafael Corvalan" <Rafael.Corvalan at linkvest.com>
> > > To: "Jesse" <jesse at fsck.com>
> > > Cc: <rt-users at lists.fsck.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:04 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp
> > >
> > >
> > > > You're absolutely right. On the other hand, using sendmail causes
> > > > the "MAIL FROM" command sent at the beginning of the SMTP
> connection
> >
> > > > beeing sent as:
> > > >
> > > > MAIL FROM: <nobody at myhost.mydomain.com>
> > > >
> > > > if sendmail is not configured otherwise. This should be OK since
> > > > this is just the "reverse-path" and should be used only to report
> > > > non-deliveries. The major problem is that some domain (I know
> > > > some...)
> > >
> > > > rejects such messages since myhost.mydomain.com does not resolve
> on
> > > > the DNS (myhost is into the company network, and not on the DMZ
> > > > neither the internet).
> > > >
> > > > To correct that problem, I have 2 possibilities:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Create an alias on the DNS so "myhost.mydomain.com" have a
> dummy
> > > > IP
> > >
> > > > address
> > > > 2) Change the sendmail configuration so the FROM: is another
> adress
> > > > (like postmaster at mydomain.com).
> > > >
> > > > But as you well suggested, it's better to do one of these things
> > > > instead of using the smtp method....
> > > >
> > > > Rafael
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jesse [mailto:jesse at fsck.com]
> > > > Sent: mardi, 7. août 2001 20:57
> > > > To: Rafael Corvalan
> > > > Cc: rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [rt-users] $RT::MailCommmand = smtp
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Long long long ago I tested it. and it worked. but a lot has
> changed
> >
> > > > since then and I don't know of anyone using it in production.  One
> > > > thing that worries me about using the 'smtp' transport is that it
> > > > doesn't really have any sort of graceful way of queueing messages
> if
> >
> > > > the server's off line. So there's a greater chance of losing mail.
> > > >
> > > >         -j
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:49:30AM +0800, Rafael Corvalan wrote:
> > > > > Hello people,
> > > > > Has someone tested the $RT::MailCommand = 'smtp'?
> > > > > In fact, if the MailCommand is not sendmail, the $RT::MailParams
> > > > > is passed as the 2nd argument to Mail::Mailer::new(), but the
> this
> >
> > > > > method
> > > >
> > > > > requires an array, not a scalar. I didn't went in depth in
> > > > > Mail::Mailer, so maybe somewhere there is a check and the scalar
> > > > > is derefernced to get an array. Has someone tried to used the
> > > > > "smtp"
> > > > method for MailCommand? Thanks Rafael
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > > > > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> > > > >
> > > > > Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes
> > > > > free! http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rt-users mailing list
> > > > > rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > > > http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > jesse reed vincent -- root at eruditorum.org -- jesse at fsck.com
> > > > 70EBAC90: 2A07 FC22 7DB4 42C1 9D71 0108 41A3 3FB3 70EB AC90
> > > >
> > > > Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as
> > > > kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic
> > > > pills and listening to repetitive electronic music. % IP networks
> > > > were intended to survive nuclear attack, but 12 year old
> > > > kids with PCs were not part of the threat model.   -- mycroft
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rt-users mailing list
> > > > rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > > http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>