Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

[no.to...@gmail.com]

I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.

Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
access smtp of the original ISP. So the mail-lists
can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.

Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
from my installed `sendmail`?

== TIA

[David Brown]

On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:

> That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your
> new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a
> dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a
> static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my
> ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on
> the local machine to do the job.
>
> Dave
>

Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
going directly to its own email relays, unless you have a special
arrangement with them or have an account (such as a "professional"
account) that allows such access. The simple facts of life are that the
huge majority of computers that want to send mail directly to
recipients' mail servers are Windows machines infected by viruses or
spambots. And blocking SMTP traffic from individual machines (except
when directed through the ISP's mail relay, which presumably has
anti-spam and anti-virus checks) is the single most efficient and simple
way to stop such spam being spread.

It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.

It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail
transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.


The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
calls it. You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the
power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a
delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message.
But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own
server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking
your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.

[Chris Davies]

no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.

> Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> access smtp of the original ISP. So the mail-lists
> can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.

Why do you think there's a correlation between not being able to use your
old ISP's SMTP server and not being able to email to the mailing lists?

Your mailing lists are presumably using an ISP-specific email address -
from your old ISP. However, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use
your new ISP's SMTP server to deliver email using your old (but valid)
email address.

Chris

[Chris Davies]

David Brown <david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not

> going directly to its own email relays [...]

That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)
Chris

[terryc]

Interesting. Regional effect? After running the incoming address through
zen.spamhaus which blocks 99% and thus saves me download fees, the
majority. for me, of "spam" now comes through Asian language IPs (cn &
jp). I do have B, C & D(IP) blocks on Korean as well.

I actually get exceedingly litte spam from dynamic(sorbs?) IPs according
to spamcop, so I've never bothered invoking a sendmail test(jargon?) on
dynamic IPs.

My view is that "open proxy" (spamcop test*) gets a REJECT in access and
no reporting address gets a "550 we dont want your spam" message" in access.

*Over a decade ago, when I started running a mail server(smtp) it would
accept everything and then process it by various scripts. At the time,
Sorbs decreed that my server was OPEN PROXY, which it wasn't. so I've
been wary about this label ever since.

The good part was that I was sharing spam via CD for people who wanted
to train their spam filters. Eventually I upgraded to sendmail and saved
a enormous amount of incoming($$$) traffic.

Getting back to the point about ISPs. Apart from briefly having my
current ISP provide DNS, I have never had any ISP require me to use
their mail server or blocked releveant ports. Caveat, I will not use one
that does.

Sadly, it is an issue of technical skills within the ISP. Dealng with
DNS issues was bad enough, but I'm not lining up to learn the
configuration of whatever mail server they think is flavour of the month
and continually fixing their configuration.

Caveat, you probably can afford a better class is ISP if you are
employed in a large company rather than running your own show.

[Robert Blair]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown
<david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
> >>
> >> Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> >> access smtp of the original ISP. So the mail-lists
> >> can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
> >>
> >> Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
> >> from my installed `sendmail`?
> >>
> > That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your
> > new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a
> > dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a
> > static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my
> > ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on
> > the local machine to do the job.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
> going directly to its own email relays, unless you have a special
> arrangement with them or have an account (such as a "professional"
> account) that allows such access.

Not entirely true. My ISP blocks port 25 to anything other than their email
server. My hosting company has the email server I use on other ports such as
2525 so I can use SMTP to them without getting blocked.

> The simple facts of life are that the
> huge majority of computers that want to send mail directly to
> recipients' mail servers are Windows machines infected by viruses or
> spambots.

Very true from my experince.

> And blocking SMTP traffic from individual machines (except
> when directed through the ISP's mail relay, which presumably has
> anti-spam and anti-virus checks) is the single most efficient and simple
> way to stop such spam being spread.
>
> It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
>
> It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail
> transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.

But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.

> The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
> all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
> calls it. You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the
> power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a
> delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message.
> But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own
> server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking
> your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.

Check with the company that supplies your email server to see what other ports
they have open for email other than port 25.

I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.


--
Robert Blair

[Joe Zeff]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:17:08 +0200, David Brown wrote:

> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
> going directly to its own email relays, unless you have a special
> arrangement with them or have an account (such as a "professional"
> account) that allows such access.

What they actually block is Port 25. They still allow outgoing Port 587,
because that uses SMTPAUTH. I know, because I have my home machines use
Port 587 to send my mail via the servers at my domain's hosting company
instead of my ISP's servers.

--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Talk is cheap because the supply
always exceeds the demand.

[David Brown]

It is probably the exception most places - most ISPs are not
particularly concerned about being "good net citizens".

In the UK, there has been such a race to get the lowest price on net
access that the quality for most ISPs is abysmal. It is full of
companies offering ADSL "up to 8 Mb/s" - with the reality being perhaps
200 Kb/s during peak times, along with a traffic cap that means you
can't download a Linux Ubuntu DVD without hitting your limits.

[David Brown]

Mail servers often also use port 587 for TLS SMTP and 465 for SSL SMTP,
and ISPs normally don't block these. But there is no need to block them
- viruses and spambots stick to port 25 and don't use authentication -
if they can't send somewhere quickly and easily, they just move on to a
different target. So a port like this is ideal for accessing externally
hosted mailservers.

>
>> The simple facts of life are that the
>> huge majority of computers that want to send mail directly to
>> recipients' mail servers are Windows machines infected by viruses or
>> spambots.
>
> Very true from my experince.
>
>
>> And blocking SMTP traffic from individual machines (except
>> when directed through the ISP's mail relay, which presumably has
>> anti-spam and anti-virus checks) is the single most efficient and simple
>> way to stop such spam being spread.
>>
>> It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
>>
>> It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail
>> transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
>
> But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.
>

Indeed - but the aim is to stop spambots that /don't/ try to go around
such blocks.

[no.to...@gmail.com]

I didn't want to mention that that one too is OOO, and will be fixed
real-soon-now, for the LAST MONTH. Everything is going to shit,
since control was handed to the natives here.

I'm <in the jungle, in a war situation>, so when I go on-line, I just
want to be able to <shoot a reply> to my mail-lists who KNOW
me, and are not expected to block me.

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <k57ua5$l2f$1...@dont-email.me>, terryc <newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote:

> On 12/10/12 09:53, Chris Davies wrote:
> > David Brown<david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
> >> going directly to its own email relays [...]
> >
> > That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)
>
> Interesting. Regional effect? After running the incoming address through
> zen.spamhaus which blocks 99% and thus saves me download fees, the
> majority. for me, of "spam" now comes through Asian language IPs (cn &
> jp). I do have B, C & D(IP) blocks on Korean as well.
>

! Yes, currently I'm getting a wave from *.jp
Last time/S there were some international games on, a spam-wave
also came from the far east. Strange?

>
>
> Getting back to the point about ISPs. Apart from briefly having my
> current ISP provide DNS, I have never had any ISP require me to use
> their mail server or blocked releveant ports. Caveat, I will not use one
> that does.
>
> Sadly, it is an issue of technical skills within the ISP. Dealng with
> DNS issues was bad enough, but I'm not lining up to learn the
> configuration of whatever mail server they think is flavour of the month
> and continually fixing their configuration.
>

That's exactly my view!

>
> Caveat, you probably can afford a better class is ISP if you are
> employed in a large company rather than running your own show.
>

No. If you follow 'bling' you get to M$. And then you're really
screwed re. INDEPENDANCE.

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <b7jjk9-...@llondel.org>, David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:

> no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
> >
> > Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> > access smtp of the original ISP. So the mail-lists
> > can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
> >

> > Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
> > from my installed `sendmail`?
> >
> That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your
> new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a
> dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a
> static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my
> ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on
> the local machine to do the job.
>

Does that mean that with only a dynamic IP, I can't send directly?
Years ago, under RH6.2, my logs show that I sent using:
`cat SampleMail | sendmail -t -f <my email-adr>`
So then did sendmail just forward it to my ISP?

From the RFC, which is quiet simple, I recoded my client, when
TXAuthorisation became necessary. But I don't know how the
bigger-picture of sending directly to a remote pop-server
works. And I'd like to lean by first communicating between
my own PC's users: root <-> sndml
Using: `cat SampleMail2 | sendmail -t -f root`
with a minimal <SampleMail>
wrote something in /var/*/spool/*

But how would I do a full cycle:
Send from root -> sndml - reply-> read reply by root ?

== TIA.

[terryc]

On 12/10/12 20:54, no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> In article<k57ua5$l2f$1...@dont-email.me>, terryc<newsnine...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/12 09:53, Chris Davies wrote:
>>> David Brown<david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
>>>> going directly to its own email relays [...]
>>>
>>> That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)
>>
>> Interesting. Regional effect? After running the incoming address through
>> zen.spamhaus which blocks 99% and thus saves me download fees, the
>> majority. for me, of "spam" now comes through Asian language IPs (cn&

>> jp). I do have B, C& D(IP) blocks on Korean as well.

>>
> ! Yes, currently I'm getting a wave from *.jp
> Last time/S there were some international games on, a spam-wave
> also came from the far east. Strange?

My understanding isthe Korea is the worlds biggest games market, so
there is a bit of by wash around from spamming related tothat.

[Chris Davies]

no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm <in the jungle, in a war situation>, so when I go on-line, I just
> want to be able to <shoot a reply> to my mail-lists who KNOW
> me, and are not expected to block me.

You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
Chris

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-p...@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown
> <david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > > no.to...@gmail.com wrote:

--snip--

> >
> > It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
> >
> > It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail
> > transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
>
> But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.

Will you please tell me how.

>
> > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
> > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
> > calls it.

Where's the docos on how to do that?

> > You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the
> > power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a
> > delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message.
> > But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own
> > server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking
> > your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.
>
> Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
>
> I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
>

No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>

Previously, all my traces in the re-coded per RFC, 'sender'
showed OK, like TxAuthenticate, but the mail was apparently
just not forwarded.

NOW, it gets <reject messages> .
So they are changing their set up.
Which screws me.
It's like Micro$hit continually moving the requirements, so
that you have to continually be paying them.
Like narcotics peddlars.

[Robert Blair]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 04:49:59 UTC, no.to...@gmail.com wrote:

> --snip--
> > >
> > > It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
> > >
> > > It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail
> > > transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
> >
> > But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.
>
> Will you please tell me how.

Use a port other than 25 when you connect to your email server.

> > > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
> > > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
> > > calls it.
>
> Where's the docos on how to do that?

Look at the sendmail documentation on how to configure sendmail to use a
"smart host".

> > > You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the
> > > power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a
> > > delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message.
> > > But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own
> > > server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking
> > > your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.
> >
> > Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> > what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
> >
> > I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
> >
> No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>

I would have expected at least one to work, are you sure you configured the
email client correctly?

Call the company that is supplying your email server and ask the what ports
are available. One email server I use requires you use SSL and use port 995
to get email and port 465 to send email. Another email server requires that I
POP before send to port 587.


--
Robert Blair

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-p...@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown
> <david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > > no.to...@gmail.com wrote:

--snip--

> >
> > It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
> >
> > It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail
> > transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
>
> But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.

Will you please tell me how.
>

> > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
> > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
> > calls it.

Where's the docos on how to do that?

> > You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the
> > power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a
> > delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message.
> > But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own
> > server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking
> > your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.
>
> Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
>
> I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
>

No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-p...@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 04:49:59 UTC, no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> --snip--

> > Will you please tell me how.
>
> Use a port other than 25 when you connect to your email server.
>
> > > > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
> > > > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
> > > > calls it.
> >
> > Where's the docos on how to do that?
>
> Look at the sendmail documentation on how to configure sendmail to use a
> "smart host".

--> OK: goog: sendmail+%22smart+host%22
> --

> > > Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> > > what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
> > >

If your living amongst sheep, you might suceed with animal psychology
provided you were skilled at it, else it's best to try technology.

> > > I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
> > >
> > No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>
>
> I would have expected at least one to work, are you sure you configured the
> email client correctly?
>

`telnet <smtpAdr> <port>`
Is easy and ambigious

> Call the company that is supplying your email server and ask the what ports
> are available. One email server I use requires you use SSL and use port 995
> to get email and port 465 to send email. Another email server requires that I
> POP before send to port 587.
>

OK, I remember once that, <after a pop-fetch 'it knew' me, for smtp>.
As you add more variables:
ISPs, ports, UserIDs .. the choas becomes unmanageable.
So re-applying to the mail-lists just adds more confusion.

> --
> Robert Blair

[no.to...@gmail.com]

Is there any 'gmail account' withOUT TxAuth?

AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's
know me as <my ISP1's ID>.

Re-applying to each mail-list as my gmail-ID, is opening
a whole NEW canOworms. Just consider the traffic of THIS
thread to try to get a simple answer.

Besides I HATE using the web-2 gmail horror.

[Bob Hauck]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:10:53 +0000 (UTC), no.to...@gmail.com <no.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <rbfmk9x...@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies <chris-...@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > I'm <in the jungle, in a war situation>, so when I go on-line, I just
>> > want to be able to <shoot a reply> to my mail-lists who KNOW
>> > me, and are not expected to block me.
>>
>> You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
>> Chris
>
> Is there any 'gmail account' withOUT TxAuth?
>
> AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's
> know me as <my ISP1's ID>.

You can attach multiple aliases to a Gmail account.

> Re-applying to each mail-list as my gmail-ID, is opening
> a whole NEW canOworms. Just consider the traffic of THIS
> thread to try to get a simple answer.
>
> Besides I HATE using the web-2 gmail horror.

They do POP and IMAP too.

--
Bob Hauck

[Chris Davies]

In article <rbfmk9x...@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies
<chris-...@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
> You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.

no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there any 'gmail account' withOUT TxAuth?
> AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's know me as <my ISP1's ID>.

> Re-applying to each mail-list as my gmail-ID, is opening
> a whole NEW canOworms. Just consider the traffic of THIS
> thread to try to get a simple answer.

You're hearing me but missing what I'm trying to suggest!

You have stated that you can receive messages sent to your old ISP's
email address. You have also stated that you're struggling to find
any way of using your current ISP to send email addresses at all, and
(reasonably enough) you can't use your old ISP to send email. So there's
no problem keeping your existing (old) email address. The difficulty is
in finding somewhere/somehow to send email messages.

My suggestion is to use Gmail's SMTP service to allow you to send messages
using your old email address. You authenticate using your Gmail
credentials, but the message has a "From: " header of your old
address. This then bypasses any email service offered by your current
broken ISP, and avoids the need to try and use your old ISP (which you
can't anyway).

Chris

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <slrnk7lchd.h...@bigbird.haucks.org>, Bob Hauck <postm...@avalanche.org> wrote:

> >> You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.

> > AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's
> > know me as <my ISP1's ID>.
> You can attach multiple aliases to a Gmail account.

Surely m...@gmail.com will NOT be sent as
m...@absamail.co.za ?! Else that would open the spam-door WIDE?!

I'll goog: gmail+%22multiple+aliases%22

> > Besides I HATE using the web-2 gmail horror.
>
> They do POP and IMAP too.

I've heard so, but at this rate I'd be dead before I opened THAT door.

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <a3rqk9x...@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies <chris-...@roaima.co.uk> wrote:

>
> In article <rbfmk9x...@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies
> <chris-...@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
> > You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
>

> My suggestion is to use Gmail's SMTP service to allow you to send
> messages using your old email address. You authenticate using your
> Gmail credentials, but the message has a "From: " header of your
> old address.

That will be great if it's possible.
Gmail KNOWS me from my login and the first/easiest
way to stop spam-Tx is to prevent a false "From:" field.

Why did they introduce the extra hurdle of TxAuthenication
and leave false "From:" fields open?

I've got a 'hand crafted' pop & smtp facility, so that I can
edit any thing down-to-the-last-bit.
In fact, it's default mode, is that I must manually enter
all fields, including "From:". Obviously I often make errors.
BTW ISP2 also had a default M$ web-based mail and I was
very happy with my modified ETHOberon set up for that:
1 clik each for: DirOfPop, FetchSelectedOne, SendMarkedFrame.
But ISP2 has been OOO for months.

Investing the effort to pop gMail & smtp gMail will be justified
if it ALSO solves the currently described problem.

I'll seek my previous notes, to telnet/probe gmail.

Thanks.

PS. ETHOberon allows easy pating between multiple apps
viewable on the same screen. So here's some pop-headers.
Do they show the <jump path> of the mailS?
--------------------
Return-path: <linux-ms...@vger.kernel.org>
Envelope-to: ding...@absamail.co.za
Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:26:28 +0200
Received: from mxl56v247.dotnetwork2.co.za ([41.77.56.247]:
7256 helo=s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za)
by aia-mx-vm-01 with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <linux-ms...@vger.kernel.org>)
id 1TMjwK-0003OJ-3N
for ding...@absamail.co.za; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:26:28 +0200
Authentication-Results: s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za; spf=none
Received: from unknown [209.132.180.67] (EHLO vger.kernel.org)
by s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1)
with ESMTP id 1d068705.0.5689670.00-421.8413091.s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za (envelope-from <linux-ms...@vger.kernel.org>);
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:26:26 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (majo...@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
id S1756328Ab2JLS0U (ORCPT <rfc822;ding...@absamail.co.za>);
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:26:20 -0400
Received: from mail.alkom-gsm.com.pl ([46.170.18.162]:37683 "EHLO
mail.alkom-gsm.com.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
with ESMTP id S1756772Ab2JLS0S (ORCPT
<rfc822;linux...@vger.kernel.org>);
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:26:18 -0400
Received: from www.alkom-gsm.com.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.alkom-gsm.com.pl (8.14.5/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q9CACHDX005074;
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:12:17 +0200
From: "Limanowa Jarek Musial" <sez...@alkom-gsm.com.pl>
Reply-To: mr_paulander...@yahoo.com
-------- This next one is a self test from gmail to popISP1
Return-path: <ding...@gmail.com>
Envelope-to: ding...@absamail.co.za
Delivery-date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:44:55 +0200
Received: from mxl56v247.dotnetwork2.co.za ([41.77.56.247]:15840 helo=s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za)
by aia-mx-vm-01 with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <ding...@gmail.com>)
id 1TIRJn-000LQp-3L; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:44:55 +0200
Authentication-Results: s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za; spf=pass
Received: from unknown [209.85.223.177]
by s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel
with SMTP id 64db8605.0.2452769.00-419.3586398.s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za (envelope-from <ding...@gmail.com>);
Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:44:54 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e14so14199320iej.22
for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=uXkGbfzWE6tmHNl4zuFIkGo9bgRF0tJrwWiauyuKv6U=;
b=yI2UBZBFpRrRpCEgkNoMbzbFI2NEUc8jbhravw5WVnj97RxtNqLqnPBgXp8RgwuoYa
LMtOEQULL0htgp0PtpZWEHSi5XXuhp+pZUt548ag2jIis287iSCb72QSTOOcPJzVg6CL
eXPiQu+dUlsIQD6RuW9ssiE/xlOUZ6w+05y3z2ysWzdqiIxsMtbS4ywkhortfxRz74OD
VmpCRIU+2n+EpHownot7TQPPJ/+XCKZERT6SU19Al8lKuZg09QV+tQDsKF57OTwkB2AB
c4LaOn4VtcAaibMqcFEYKxRCFIqo6AVokyqEQBjT8E2EXD1EiZqCXk5Y/IwcpOeq6kDn
WX1Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.194.138 with SMTP id hw10mr4065642igc.11.1349041493213;
Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.53.73 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:44:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CACe=ECqUesVgtZP6e+mCjFe6foM...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: re. email failures
From: chris glur <ding...@gmail.com>

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-p...@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown
> <david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > > no.to...@gmail.com wrote:

--snip--

>
> The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
> all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
> calls it.

OK, I'm collecting info on 'sendmail+"smart host"', but even this
best one is deficient: ---------------------
==> The SMART_HOST macro allows you to specify the host that should
relay all outgoing mail that you are unable to deliver directly, and
the mail transport protocol to use to talk to it.

=\ Open your configuration file:# vi /etc/mail/sendmail.mcAppend or
modify macro that read as follows
:define(`SMART_HOST',`smtp.net4india.com')Replace smtp.net4india.com
with your actual smtp server address. If line contains word, dnl
remove the dnl word. Regenerate a new sendmail.cf config file with
m4 command:# m4 /etc/mail/sendmail.mc > /etc/mail/sendmail.cfRestart
sendmail service:# /etc/init.d/sendmail restart

==?==> WHAT is "your actual smtp server address" ??
-> pgrep sendmail == na.
---------------- end of extract ----------------------
By "your actual smtp server address"
he must mean the ID of the sendmail-server-on-your-PC?

Because your-PC will be sending to the remote <name@domain>?
So where do I find that?

[Chris Davies]

no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'll seek my previous notes, to telnet/probe gmail.

You'll need to use openssl s_client rather than nc/telnet, because
gmail only accepts authenticated email via SMTP/SSL or possibly SMTP/TLS
(I forget).

Chris

[no.to...@gmail.com]

Before investigating 'SMTP/SSL or possibly SMTP/TLS'
I must confirm that mutt can send/reply without falsefying the
sender.

Thanks.
==============
I meant WITH a falsefied sender.
So that I can let gmail pretend I'm the original ISP1-sender.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, October 11th, 2012, at 23:53:53h +0100,
Chris Davies explained:

Is that because ISPs in the UKofGB&NI are now required by law
to keep a record of all ingoing and outgoing e-mail for when
the government authorities demand the information on with whom
Joe Luser has been communicating?

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <k5ha6d$4bj$4...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 11th, 2012, at 23:53:53h +0100,
> Chris Davies explained:
>
> David Brown <david...@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
>> going directly to its own email relays [...]

Does that mean the ISP can determine if a clients 'stream' is going
to: http or NTTP or <email> ?

But then these detestible(sp) web-based mails would 'escape'?

I was pleased, that based on feedback from this thread, I got
`mutt` to read my gmail, which is even better than `lynx` or
`links`.

But now I realise that to SEND mutt, just uses `sendmail`.
So I'm back where I started. And I'm not convinced that
if I sweat-blood to get sendmail: smart-host working,
it will be able to fake my "From: " field to make the
mail-lists believe that I'm sending from the orininal
ISP1.

What slays me, is that whereas pop & smtp to the ISP are so
trivial, that you can just write down the steps from the RFC,
and interactively paste them as a telnet session.

`sendmail` seems to be as absurd as the-english-language.

Why doesn't somebody who claims to understand it, do a
hello-world/successive-refinment evolutionary test-sequence/
tutorial. eg:--
* send from root to non-root-user on the same PC.
* send from non-root-user to root user on the same PC.
I tried that and traced that my text had gone to /var/*,
but couldn't 'pop' it, to get a full 'cycle'.
* CONFIRM receipt ....
* send from root to ISP port 25
* send from non-root-user to ISP port xyz <-probe
* etc.

With a list of confirmatory traces for each stage.

What RFC should I fetch?

==TIA.

[Chris Davies]

I think you've misread my comment as its opposite. In the UK it is *not*
normal to block outgoing SMTP traffic.

Picking up on your reference to the proposed record keeping, I'm curious
to know by what criteria an organisation would be judged in order for
it to be determined whether it was permitted to run its own direct
SMTP server. But I suspect we ought to take this sideline to its own
thread.

Chris

[J G Miller]

On Monday, October 15th, 2012 23:32:43 +0100, Chris Davies explained:

> I think you've misread my comment as its opposite. In the UK it is *not*
> normal to block outgoing SMTP traffic.

My mistake -- thanks for the clarification.

> Picking up on your reference to the proposed record keeping, I'm curious
> to know by what criteria an organisation would be judged in order for
> it to be determined whether it was permitted to run its own direct
> SMTP server.

Probably in the future, it will be necessary to buy a government issued
licence to legally operate an SMTP server which "broadcasts/receives"
to/from the Internet ;)

This will be a source of revenue and provide a legal reason for
the SMTP licence agents (run by a private company) to visit suspected
terrorists and those critical of the ruling party.

After all if one is required to purchase a licence to receive live video
or transmit over the public airwaves, why not a licence to receive or
transmit over the public Internet?