sendmail, root, and "the man"
Hi,
My isp is complaining about my "sender:" header lines in my emails:
> Please don't send email until you have your system set up properly.
> Your return address is still wrong and undeliverable:
>
> David Stern <kotsya@mailhost1.cac.washington.edu>
>
> You are not on "mailhost1.cac.washington.edu".
In exmh my From: looks perfect:
From: David Stern <kotsya@u.washington.edu>
However, my isp authorities use Pine (it's their product), and in Pine:
From: David Stern <kotsya@mailhost2.cac.washington.edu>
Apparently Pine looks to the "sender:" line, exmh to the "From:" line
to get the displayed "From:". Both actually work, but mailhostX.cac is
wrong. The wrong hostname is probably derived from my smtp server
mailhost.u.washington.edu (expanded by canonization, I presume?).
After some reading of docs, faqs, tutorials and other sendmail
resources, and some experimentation, I got my hostname
localhost.localdomain to masquerade as u.washington.edu by running
sendmailconfig, and restarting sendmail after editing
/etc/mail/sendmail.cf to read:
# class E: names that should be exposed as from this host, even if
we masquerade
CE root root@localhost root@localhost.localdomain
This works with one big exception: mail to root must first go to the
smtp server. My isp is unhappy with me about a uucp report which was
generated when my root installed uucp which generated a report that
made it to them, so I must have it so that there is NO possibility for
mail destined for my root to go anywhere but on my box. I don't really
want mail destined for my root going out to my smtp server, anyway.
I don't know what I need to do. Does this sound reasonably feasible?
Would somebody please give me a clue about what I need to do to get
this to work? I haven't decided to stick with sendmail yet, so the
"Bat" book (O'Reilly) will have to wait a little bit.
David Stern
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: