Re: [vps-mail] Sendmail - going from spammers.db to access.db

[Marjolein Katsma <tfyj8lv02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 14:50 2003-11-21, Weldon wrote:
>Marjolein Katsma wrote:
[snip]
>>Except, when Eudora tried that, with sendmail.cf based on default.mc, it was rejected. So, my conclusion now is that somehow, authentication with SMTP AUTH was _not_ allowed, in spite of what this comment states. When I UNchecked "Authentication allowed" in Eudora, mail got through again.
>
>I've heard of lots of people with similar problems to yours (using Eudora), who have solved the problem the same way.

Ah. I still don't quite understand _why_ that worked (though your reply helps a little) but I'm glad to hear my "gut feeling" did at point me in the right direction ;) And as long as it works (and as long as it doesn't pose a major security risk)...

>The few times I've used Eudora, I noticed that it tries to use a third mechanism called CRAM-MD5 by default.. While CRAM-MD5 is a superior authentication mechanism (because it is encrypted), it is an extreme pain to configure and set up on VPS1. (That's why it isn't in any of the default configurations.) Last time I checked, all Microsoft clients use the LOGIN mechanism (exclusively). Most other clients use the LOGIN and/or PLAIN mechanisms. (Two months ago, when I was trying out different clients, I jotted down a few--random and incomplete--notes. You can read them at: http://www.technoids.org/saslmech.html)

Again, I understand only part of it - but no matter. The more I play with this (and the moer helpful posts appear in this list!) the more I understand. A little bit over my head is just a challenge ;-)

I probably should mention though that I'm using Eudora 4.3.2 (paid for) - later version feature lists never mentioned anything I wanted, let alone needed, so I simply didn't "upgrade". I've used Eudora for many years now, I'm used to it, I have a long list of "personalities" and a *huge* list of filters sorting stuff in a detailed folder hierarchy. It's another case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - I'd need a really, really strong reason to move to another client and then would likely need a week or more to set it up to do the equivalent of what Eudora is doing for me now.

I hear good things about Mozilla/Thunderbird mail - they may actually be superior to Eudora, but as long Eudora does everything I need, why change?

Anyway, I don't think my version of Eudora supports CRAM-MD5 - but then I don't think I really need it either.

(BTW, I know what MD5 is - but what is CRAM?)

>Ah, yes. (I should have grepped before I posted ... [sigh])

NP. Most of the time I *like* reading code to understand what's what. Give me a hint, and I'll delve a bit deeper ;-)

>This is probably more than you want to know, but here goes:

<chuckle/>
It's probably just what I do want to know - though I don't fully understand it yet. I do understand it at a global level though, and I trust still more will click into place as I read more posts in this list. I'll get back to it and read it again. Thanks for taking the effort of writing all this up!

[snip]

>As far as reordering the lines *within* Local_check_rcpt is concerned: do it at your own risk!

Ah, yes, but then we're back at sendmail.cf syntax, aren't we? ;-)
I've tried to understand some of that syntax in order to make (small) changes (understanding a little more each time), but never dreamed of changing order of lines there...

>Sendmail is more forgiving when it comes to the order of the macros definitions, FEATUREs, etc., in the mc file. However, in some cases, order is important. If (for example) you use procmail as the local delivery agent, you *must* include one (not both!!) of the lines:
>
>define(`local_procmail_lmtp')
>
>OR
>
>define(`local_procmail')
>
>*before*
>
>the MAILER lines!

Ah. That's good to know. (Procmail is on my todo list, too - just a little lower than access.db)

>I think you're set to go. ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it!")

I'm going already ;-)

And yes, 'vnewaccess' did work. I love it when things are consistent!
(Just one curious message about a leading space that I can't find but access.db was generated anyway. Poked at the binary but the last line in access does seem to have made it into access.db so I'm not worried.)

Oh, I just had another look at the log - I *am* seeing rejects for To: rules in my access.db now. Great improvement (I think) over just dev/null'ing those mails.
Another hurdle taken!

Thanks,


-- 
Marjolein Katsma

======================================================================
This is <vps-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>       <http://www.perlcode.org/lists/>
======================================================================