Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Peter Lowrie wrote:
>>> so let me get this straight. Is sendmail like a pop3 and smtp server?
>>>
>>> Are user accounts set up with a shell?
>>>
>>> The reason I ask is because I want to put this Sparcstation to use.
>>> The email servers and clients are installed as a matter of course. I
>>> just want to be sure it looks outwardly like a pop and smtp server.
>>>
>> No.
>>
>> Sendmail is a Mail Transfer Agent or MTA.
>>
>> It accepts incoming SMTP connections, or direct injection from other
>> programs, and processes mail to deliver it to 'delivery agents' based
>> on a hugely flexible rule based configurator, and it rewrites the mail
>> headers on the way according to another set of rules.
>> It may also reject mail in various ways.
>>
>> ONE of the available delivery agents is the UNIX 'mail' program which
>> will deliver the mail to a file inbox - usually
>> /var/spool/mail/<user>...where it may be read directly using several
>> different Unix MUA's (mail USER agents) or accessed via 'popd' if this
>> is set up to run, which in turn will serve incoming pop mail
>> connections.
>
> Excuse me, but the MTA does that. "mail" can read and edit that file to
> delete or save individual messages: but it usually transfers saved files to
> $HOMEDIR/mbox when it exits.
>
> "mail" is an MUA, not an MTA.

If you read what I wrote, thats exactly what I said.

>
>> In order top set up a SPARC as a pop mail server, and an SMTP relay,
>> you need:-
>>
>> A working internet connecting and routing
>
> Only for external mail access, particularly for incoming mail. For
> internal-only or for outgoing mail only, you can actually live with no
> incoming connections.
>

True, but if he wants an SMTP relay, its unlikely he wants just interanl
mail...

>> Working DNS name resolution
>
> No, you can use
> .
>> sendmail running with the -bd switch to go into background server mode
>> A correctly written sendmail.cf file. Set up to route local mail to
>> the local delivery agent, and remote mail to the internet via SMTP
>> User accounts for every user on the mail system. With passwords
>> popd running.
>
> No, you don't need user accounts for everyone: There are multiple ways to
> have shared or even database managed user accounts that don't require local
> logins and only support IMAP/POP3 access, or aliases that can transfer the
> email elsewhere.

Sure. But POPD doesn't support them directly.

Heck, you CAN have a single secretary reading all the mail from the
server using EMACS and printing it out and putting it in envelope to
deliver by hand...(No I am NOT joikng..that much)
>
OP: I did warn you about the 50 different ways and the 100 different
opinions didn't I..;-)Look I caught one already..

>> The O'reilly book 'sendmail' has everything you need and more, and
>> was, when I last did this, the definitive manual.
>
> Agreed. I find sendmail fairly painful to configure for anything even
> remotely interesting, and Postfix vastly easier to configure. Your mileage
> may vary, but examples include alias management for mailman services and
> running virtual servers with spam filtering, especially milters.

I know less than fuck all about postfix, but spent 4 years or more of my
life developing and tuning sendmail.

During that time I also learnt to READ Usenet subject lines.

This one says 'sendmail setup'




>
>> Oh, and with sendmail, there are always at least 50 different ways of
>> achieving the desired results, and 100 different people telling you
>> their particular one is the one and only pure godlike way to set it
>> up.
>> Relax, just hack the bastard till it works. 99.999% of sendmail will
>> never ever be needed, you can thank your lucky stars that no one now
>> uses UUCP bang style path addressing..and you haven't got a bunch of
>> know all academics who insist on attempting to use every address form
>> known to man to prove that your configuration is not as perfect as
>> their egos.*
>
> Oh, agreed. Been there, done that, had to deal with the mortals who refused
> to give NFS mounting things for Emacs RMAIL.
>
>> Popd? - just read the man pages.
>
> Then throw it the hell out. Proceed directly to IMAP services, preferably
> with the dovecot server, and proceed to using Maildir format instead of mbox
> for performance and backup reliability reasons.
>

Whatever...popd is light simple and works.
Not everyone is a frustrated academic wanting to reinvent the wheel and
add so many creeping featurisms that it won't even turn without a 1000
bhp engine to drive it.


>

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> No, you don't need user accounts for everyone: There are multiple
>> ways to have shared or even database managed user accounts that
>> don't require local logins and only support IMAP/POP3 access, or
>> aliases that can transfer the email elsewhere.
>
> Sure. But POPD doesn't support them directly.

Some POP3, and especially IMAP servers, can authenticate via database
back-ends. This creates a possibility for shared resources or multiple user
access to the same shared email that's otherwise access.

In fact, if possible, throw out POP3. There are many, many powerful
technical reasons not to use it, the most important of which is that if you
connect to the same server from two different clients, the layout of
mailboxes is almost impossible to synchronize with POP3.

> Heck, you CAN have a single secretary reading all the mail from the
> server using EMACS and printing it out and putting it in envelope to
> deliver by hand...(No I am NOT joikng..that much)

I've seen similar, where a VP hired a secretary to manage their
overwhelming mail spool rather than upgrading the server to MAILDIR so they
could easily access and manage their huge mailboxes.

>> Agreed. I find sendmail fairly painful to configure for anything even
>> remotely interesting, and Postfix vastly easier to configure. Your
>> mileage may vary, but examples include alias management for mailman
>> services and running virtual servers with spam filtering, especially
>> milters.
>
> I know less than fuck all about postfix, but spent 4 years or more of
> my life developing and tuning sendmail.

I've worked with both. I got turned onto Postfix less than 3 years ago,
because so many folks I worked with really insisted on using UNIX servers
such as Suns for core services. I'm very disenchanted with the approach:
useful and problem-saving shifts, such as the integration of procmail and
milters, tend to lag way behind in default UNIX sendmail releases.

> During that time I also learnt to READ Usenet subject lines.
>
> This one says 'sendmail setup'

And this is relevant. "Avoid the need".

> Whatever...popd is light simple and works.
> Not everyone is a frustrated academic wanting to reinvent the wheel
> and add so many creeping featurisms that it won't even turn without a
> 1000 bhp engine to drive it.

Oh, please! POP3, which is the name of the protocol, works just fine until
it shreds people's email because *every single POP3 client in the universe*
downloads all the mail and deletes it off the server, by default. This means
that every time someone sets up a new client, they risk blowing away all
their email from the server. This is painfully stupid and risks user's
email. I've had to fix and restore mail blown away this way, repeatedly,
until I migrated people over to IMAP.

And please, learn the language of what you're discussing. There is no such
thing as POPD. There are easily dozens of POP daemons available, but none of
them I've seen in the Linux world are called POPD. There is pop3d, which is
what some software calls the daemon, and even pop2d for POP2 as opposed to
POP3 services.

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> No, you don't need user accounts for everyone: There are multiple
>>> ways to have shared or even database managed user accounts that
>>> don't require local logins and only support IMAP/POP3 access, or
>>> aliases that can transfer the email elsewhere.
>> Sure. But POPD doesn't support them directly.
>
> Some POP3, and especially IMAP servers, can authenticate via database
> back-ends. This creates a possibility for shared resources or multiple user
> access to the same shared email that's otherwise access.
>
> In fact, if possible, throw out POP3. There are many, many powerful
> technical reasons not to use it, the most important of which is that if you
> connect to the same server from two different clients, the layout of
> mailboxes is almost impossible to synchronize with POP3.
>
>> Heck, you CAN have a single secretary reading all the mail from the
>> server using EMACS and printing it out and putting it in envelope to
>> deliver by hand...(No I am NOT joikng..that much)
>
> I've seen similar, where a VP hired a secretary to manage their
> overwhelming mail spool rather than upgrading the server to MAILDIR so they
> could easily access and manage their huge mailboxes.
>
>>> Agreed. I find sendmail fairly painful to configure for anything even
>>> remotely interesting, and Postfix vastly easier to configure. Your
>>> mileage may vary, but examples include alias management for mailman
>>> services and running virtual servers with spam filtering, especially
>>> milters.
>> I know less than fuck all about postfix, but spent 4 years or more of
>> my life developing and tuning sendmail.
>
> I've worked with both. I got turned onto Postfix less than 3 years ago,
> because so many folks I worked with really insisted on using UNIX servers
> such as Suns for core services. I'm very disenchanted with the approach:
> useful and problem-saving shifts, such as the integration of procmail and
> milters, tend to lag way behind in default UNIX sendmail releases.
>
>> During that time I also learnt to READ Usenet subject lines.
>>
>> This one says 'sendmail setup'
>
> And this is relevant. "Avoid the need".
>
>> Whatever...popd is light simple and works.
>> Not everyone is a frustrated academic wanting to reinvent the wheel
>> and add so many creeping featurisms that it won't even turn without a
>> 1000 bhp engine to drive it.
>
> Oh, please! POP3, which is the name of the protocol, works just fine until
> it shreds people's email because *every single POP3 client in the universe*
> downloads all the mail and deletes it off the server, by default. This means
> that every time someone sets up a new client, they risk blowing away all
> their email from the server. This is painfully stupid and risks user's
> email. I've had to fix and restore mail blown away this way, repeatedly,
> until I migrated people over to IMAP.

It depends on whether YOU want responsibility for email, or the end user
wants it.

Frankly best thing is to get it off the server onto the PC and have done
with it.

>
> And please, learn the language of what you're discussing. There is no such
> thing as POPD. There are easily dozens of POP daemons available, but none of
> them I've seen in the Linux world are called POPD. There is pop3d, which is
> what some software calls the daemon, and even pop2d for POP2 as opposed to
> POP3 services.
>
>

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

>> Oh, please! POP3, which is the name of the protocol, works just fine
>> until it shreds people's email because *every single POP3 client in
>> the universe* downloads all the mail and deletes it off the server,
>> by default. This means that every time someone sets up a new client,
>> they risk blowing away all their email from the server. This is
>> painfully stupid and risks user's email. I've had to fix and restore
>> mail blown away this way, repeatedly, until I migrated people over
>> to IMAP.
>
> It depends on whether YOU want responsibility for email, or the end
> user wants it.
>
> Frankly best thing is to get it off the server onto the PC and have
> done with it.

Which is fine, and works well with IMAP without all the problems of POP
flushing mail from the server by default. POP screwups are nasty and very
painful to fix, especially as users store lots and lots of email and then
blow up their clients and want their old mailbox layout back, which can be
extremely painful to cope with.

Peter Lowrie wrote:
> so let me get this straight. Is sendmail like a pop3 and smtp server?

No and yes.

sendmail is a mail transfer agent, and supports protocols to transfer
mail between hosts. Most typical is smtp, it will support uucp as well,
and some other protocols I don't remember. pop3 and imap are mail user
agent protocols, at least by intention. There are many programs which
will provide pop3 and imap service which work seamlessly with sendmail.
>
> Are user accounts set up with a shell?

You can use a GUI, shell script, or test editor on the config files.
Whatever you find easiest.
>
> The reason I ask is because I want to put this Sparcstation to use. The
> email servers and clients are installed as a matter of course. I just want
> to be sure it looks outwardly like a pop and smtp server.
>
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> Hi, I am not a Linux person but I am now setting up my first server.
>> The main reason I am doing this is to run a mail server. Can anybody
> point
>> me to a URL/book that will help a novice setup and maintain one?
>> Any help is greatly appreciated.
>


--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com