AIX Sendmail - change sender's address
Joe
I have been tasked with customizing the configuration of sendmail to
send mails via the internet. The customization has resulted to a 2
part solution. The first part was that the domain was not known
outside of our corporate network. I solved this by setting up
masquerading on the server. The second part is that I have 6 servers
that use the same masquerading and I would like to be able to identify
where these emails are coming from. I believe that this may be
accomplished by adding the short hostname to the user side of the email
address. To better illustrate what I am trying to accomplish, I will
give an example.
EXAMPLE:
Using "rs6000" as the short hostname, and "example.com" as the domain.
Original sender's address: us...@rs6000.example.com
After configuring masquerading: us...@example.com
Desired sender's address: user_...@example.com
If anyone can give any insight into a solution for this. That would be
great.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Joe
base60
> Ladies and Gents;
> I have been tasked with customizing the configuration of sendmail to
> send mails via the internet. The customization has resulted to a 2
> part solution. The first part was that the domain was not known
> outside of our corporate network.
So?
> I solved this by setting up masquerading on the server.
Solved what?
> The second part is that I have 6 servers
> that use the same masquerading and I would like to be able to identify
> where these emails are coming from. I believe that this may be
> accomplished by adding the short hostname to the user side of the email
> address. To better illustrate what I am trying to accomplish, I will
> give an example.
>
> EXAMPLE:
> Using "rs6000" as the short hostname, and "example.com" as the domain.
>
> Original sender's address: us...@rs6000.example.com
>
> After configuring masquerading: us...@example.com
>
> Desired sender's address: user_...@example.com
>
> If anyone can give any insight into a solution for this. That would be
> great.
Or not...
Insight: looks more like a mess than a "solution," to me.
If you want to hand-roll some rules, you can do the above.
For the sake of argument, we'll assume it's working.
OK, now what happens if the email bounces?
6 machines == 6 return email addresses... probably none
of which are valid.
You don't seem as though you've thought this through too well...
You might be better of describing the *original* issue.
GRK
Hi Joe,
Let me know , have you configured the sendmail.cf file.
Regards
Ravi Kumar
Transworld ICT Solutions
Joe
No need to be pretentious. But, if that is your way of helping. Let
me clear things up for you.
In response to your first "So?":
Can't send email from a unknown domain. Given your attitude, I would
think you should know that.
In response to your "Solved what?" question:
Masquerading solved the unknown domain issue. Also, refer to my
response above.
You are correct in your observation that bounced emails from these
servers would not be returnable. First, our firewalls would stop them
(only outgoing mail). Second, these servers are not configured to
accept incoming email, nor would I configure them for that (auditors
are peculiar about that sort of thing).
But, given the information above, which isn't needed by anyone to help
with the issue, you must be right. I haven't thought this through at
all.
Thanks
Joe
Joe
The sendmail.cf file has been configured. I am currently working on a
solution which uses a genericstable to handle the formatting of the
sender's address.
This appears to be the accepted/usual solution to this sort of issue.
base60
> Base60,
> No need to be pretentious.
You asked.
> But, if that is your way of helping. Let
> me clear things up for you.
>
> In response to your first "So?":
> Can't send email from a unknown domain. Given your attitude, I would
> think you should know that.
Yeah, I know... you missed the point.
>
> In response to your "Solved what?" question:
> Masquerading solved the unknown domain issue. Also, refer to my
> response above.
Actually, it didn't solve anything... it just moved the problem...
light coming on, now?
>
> You are correct in your observation that bounced emails from these
> servers would not be returnable. First, our firewalls would stop them
> (only outgoing mail). Second, these servers are not configured to
> accept incoming email, nor would I configure them for that (auditors
> are peculiar about that sort of thing).
Then why do you care where they're coming from and is there a problem
with using your log files for occasional problem determination?
>
>
> But, given the information above, which isn't needed by anyone to help
> with the issue, you must be right. I haven't thought this through at
> all.
Given what you're asking, that was my conclusion.
And, kindly note, I'm being factual and not snotty.
>
> Joe
>
Joe
> Joe wrote:
> > Base60,
> > No need to be pretentious.
>
> You asked.
>
Yeah, I asked for some help, not pointless commentary.
> > But, if that is your way of helping. Let
> > me clear things up for you.
> >
> > In response to your first "So?":
> > Can't send email from a unknown domain. Given your attitude, I would
> > think you should know that.
>
> Yeah, I know... you missed the point.
>
Obviously, and yet you still can't seem to make a clear one...point
that is.
> >
> > In response to your "Solved what?" question:
> > Masquerading solved the unknown domain issue. Also, refer to my
> > response above.
>
> Actually, it didn't solve anything... it just moved the problem...
> light coming on, now?
How do you figure? Let me enlighten you.....in the beginning, there
were 6 servers whose domains were unknown and could not send emails
outside of the local network due to unknown sender error. Along came a
lowly system admin, who, upon recognizing the issue, set about to
correct it.
Days and nights passed, where the system admin spent his time
researching sendmail documentation for this was something relatively
new to him. When, at last, a solution to the unknown sender error
appeared within a piece of the hallowed sendmail documentation (on
IBM's website), it came in the form of masquerading. The system admin
then set about configuring one server using this new information with
much trepidation. While bent over his keyboard, upon completing this
new configuration, he did attempt to send an email using the mail -v
command. There was much rejoicing when said email was delivered to the
appropriate email server without harm or issue.
But a question furrowed the brow of the lowly system admin. "How do I
distinguish the emails from the different servers, while using
masquerading?", he thought to himself. Again he set off to research
sendmail configuration, finding bits and pieces of what he thought was
relevant information. But, in the end, he could not put the pieces
together himself. So, he set off to find those who may be able to help
him. Coming across the comp.unix.aix and comp.mail.sendmail groups on
google.com, he contemplated asking the question. After mustering much
courage and fortitude he did, then, present his question with much hope
that someone may direct him to an appropriate document to help him with
his problem. This was not to be the case with the comp.unix.aix group,
for their representative, Base60, acting in a most unprofessional and
discourteous manner did mock and ridicule the lowly system admin rather
than offer a suggestion or idea which may have pointed the questioner
in a helpful direction. When, in the darkest hour, where the lowly
system admin thought that he may have to continue alone upon his
sendmail research, a light did appear. A candle flicker, ever so
faintly in the distance, held by a friendly hand in the
comp.mail.sendmail group. The holder of this candle did offer a
suggestion and directed the lowly system admin to appropriate
supporting documentation, which has resulted in progress to solve the
issues he is facing.
Wow, I've missed my calling. I should be a creative writer. Is that
enough of a description for you?
>
> >
> > You are correct in your observation that bounced emails from these
> > servers would not be returnable. First, our firewalls would stop them
> > (only outgoing mail). Second, these servers are not configured to
> > accept incoming email, nor would I configure them for that (auditors
> > are peculiar about that sort of thing).
>
> Then why do you care where they're coming from and is there a problem
> with using your log files for occasional problem determination?
First, the people who are getting these emails, don't have access to
the servers to read the logs. Second, these are notifications of a
failed automatic batch processing. If you had to watch each process as
it ran, it kind of gets away from the idea of automatic batch
processing. Stop me if I am going too fast. Just the facts, ma'am.
Oh, and when I have a problem, I use the logs for problem
determination, get off your horse, before you fall.
>
> >
> >
> > But, given the information above, which isn't needed by anyone to help
> > with the issue, you must be right. I haven't thought this through at
> > all.
>
> Given what you're asking, that was my conclusion.
Again, what I am trying to do is common practice in sendmail, as my
research bears out....it's part of virtual hosting....check out these
links....
http://www.madboa.com/geek/sendmail-genericstable/
http://www.sendmail.org/virtual-hosting.html
The people who wrote these documents must not have thought it out very
well either.
>
> And, kindly note, I'm being factual and not snotty.
>
Keep telling yourself that.
And kindly note, I am being sarcastic.
Thanks for all your help, especially with my creative writing practice.
Joe
base60
> base60 wrote:
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>Base60,
>>>No need to be pretentious.
>>
>>You asked.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I asked for some help, not pointless commentary.
When you're asking for help, you've already acknowledged that
you're not a good judge of what "pointless commentary" is.
I have no involvement in your mess and given your 'tude, I'd
rather let you dig yourself deeper than try to help you... :)
Have a nice day.
Joe
I took a bit of time to read some of the other threads that you posted
in, just to see if your response to my question was a normal response
for you. From what I could see, it looks like in general you try to be
helpful, so I have to wonder why you responded the way you did to my
question. If you think you weren't being condecending and pretentious
in your response, you may need to re-read your initial response.
Perhaps, you could have responded with....
"To do what you are trying to do, take a look at the following
documentation...<provided links>. But, you may want to consider the
following issues with your current arrangement....<insert observation
here>"
But when you respond with statements like.....
"So?"....."So what?"....."Looks like a big mess to me"....."Light
coming on yet?"...
You sound like a condecending jerk. Just something to think about when
you reply to questions in the future.
I didn't post a question in this technical user group to get in an
argument with someone I don't even know. I asked a specific question,
if you didn't want to address the question, then you shouldn't have
responded.
I apologize to those who have read this thread, I never should have
responded in the way I did to Base60's reply.
Joe
Ron Sesnaski
>
> And, kindly note, I'm being factual and not snotty.
>
No your not, your definitely coming down on the
snotty side... just in case you wanted a 2nd opinion.
Ron
base60
So, Ron, if you want to make yourself useful, why don't you
help him with his problem? :)
base60
> Base60,
> I took a bit of time to read some of the other threads that you posted
> in, just to see if your response to my question was a normal response
> for you. From what I could see, it looks like in general you try to be
> helpful, so I have to wonder why you responded the way you did to my
> question. If you think you weren't being condecending and pretentious
> in your response, you may need to re-read your initial response.
> Perhaps, you could have responded with....
I've taken the liberty of cross-posting this to alt.angst for you
Have fun with the 1200+ pages in the sendmail book and a better
tomorrow :)
Joe
> I've taken the liberty of cross-posting this to alt.angst for you
I guess this must be some sort of slight or insult. The alt.angst
group looks to be a place to post pointless commentary on a variety of
subjects.....wait, it's perfect for you, Base60.
> Have fun with the 1200+ pages in the sendmail book and a better
> tomorrow :)
>
Isn't it great that Amazon.com lists the number of pages in a book?
Thanks for looking it up. I don't need all 1200+, I only need the 10 -
15 that relate to what I am trying to accomplish.
I tried to let this go, but you just couldn't. So, who am I not to
join in. Everything about your persona here indicates someone who has
really no idea what they are doing. From the nifty mathematical
reference of your nick, to your witty use of whitehouse.com for your
email address. You thrive in the anonymous online world, because you
can't relate to the real world outside.
But, instead of continuing this verbal sparring, let's see you flex the
intellect you flaunt on the user groups. Provide a solution to the
problem. I honestly don't think you can. Let me re-define the issue
since it has changed ever so slightly with the progress I have made and
what I have learned in the past few days on the comp.mail.sendmail
group.
Operating System: AIX 5.2ML7
Sendmail version: 8.11.6p2 (installed as part of OS)
Issue:
Convert sender's address on header and envelope of outgoing mail from
unqualified user name on host <hostname> in domain <example.com>, such
that the resulting address looks like the following:
The solution must be generic enough that specific code and/or table
entries for every user on the system is not required.
In order to verify the solution, you would need to provide the .mc and
sendmail.cf file used. And describe any additional configuration
settings which cannot be answered by those two files, such as
genericstable entries, etc.
So, there it is. A challenge to you. I have a pretty good idea of
what your response will be, but I'll let you make it instead of
spoiling the surprise for everyone.
Joe.
Wil Cooley
> I tried to let this go, but you just couldn't. So, who am I not to
> join in. Everything about your persona here indicates someone who has
> really no idea what they are doing. From the nifty mathematical
> reference of your nick, to your witty use of whitehouse.com for your
> email address. You thrive in the anonymous online world, because you
> can't relate to the real world outside.
+--------------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT FEED |
| THE TROLLS |
| --The Mgt.|
+------++------+
||
o o o || *
,,\|/,,,||,,,/,,,
---+--------------