Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #475 > unrolled thread

Can I by-pass my ISP to email?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  Can I by-pass my ISP to email? "NoHtmlMailsPlease" <UsePlainText@dog.edu> - 2011-08-11 20:54 +0200
    Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2011-08-13 15:03 +0100
      Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? "NoHtmlMailsPlease" <UsePlainText@dog.edu> - 2011-08-14 08:45 +0200
        Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:49 +0100
        Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2011-08-14 16:19 +0100
          Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> - 2011-08-15 02:38 +0000
    Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2011-08-13 16:17 +0200
    Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-08-13 15:30 +0000
      Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2011-08-13 19:31 +0200
        Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> - 2011-08-14 11:44 +0000
          Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2011-08-14 16:07 +0200
            Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2011-08-14 16:14 +0100
            Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> - 2011-08-15 02:35 +0000
              Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-08-15 08:59 +0100
                Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> - 2011-08-15 13:28 +0000
                  Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-08-15 15:24 +0100
                Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-08-16 14:05 +0000
    Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Stefan Schmiedl <s@xss.de> - 2011-08-13 19:30 +0200
      Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? "NoHtmlMailsPlease" <UsePlainText@dog.edu> - 2011-08-14 09:11 +0200
    Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-08-13 20:49 +0000
      Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? "NoHtmlMailsPlease" <UsePlainText@dog.edu> - 2011-08-14 09:52 +0200
    Re: Can I by-pass my ISP to email? unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> - 2011-08-14 11:41 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#475 — Can I by-pass my ISP to email?

The user interface and text-handling facilities of my
LinuxETHoberon is so nice, that I hate to have to paste
the text to something like `evolution` to send it,
especially since I fetch mail by LinuxETHoberon.

The first time my ISP introduced sendAuthorisation,
I modified my LinuxETHoberon to handle it. Then a
few years later the ISP used a different type of 
sendAuthorisation.  And I'm not interested to 
modify my code again. The novelty had gone.

Some one said "use sendmail or equivalent to
bypass your ISP's mail-server".
Which sounds feasible.
If I've got an inet connection, I can ping any IP.
and telnet any IP.  So I can talk to the recipient's
mail-server. 

During the week I've only got access to a wireless
connection, for which I had to buy a win7 netbook,
because the wireless-terminal has no linux driver.
So there I can reluctantly use win7's emailer crap.

Since Win7 can telnet, I'd like to experiment, first just
telneting to my own gmail & non-gmail accounts.
And if that works I'll see about linux-sendmail to
bypass my weekend land-line ISP.

How would I do that?

OK, it's easy to telnet my non-gmail pop & smtp, since
I know the IPs, and have logs of doing it previously.
But how would I telnet my gmail account?
Or even telnet the gmail server?

Although apparently sendmail is a pain to setup,
perhaps that's easier than first trying some DNS to
get the IP of the email of the recipient?

Can I by-pass my ISP to email?

==TIA
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#476

NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:

> 
> Although apparently sendmail is a pain to setup,
> perhaps that's easier than first trying some DNS to
> get the IP of the email of the recipient?
> 
> Can I by-pass my ISP to email?
> 
The acid test is often whether you're on a dynamic or static IP address. 
Many mail servers won't accept traffic from dynamic IP addresses outside 
their own allocation. I run sendmail on a static IP address and don't have 
any problem. Some ISPs also block port 25 outbound from their own address 
space, or intercept it and redirect it to their own servers.
-- 
Dave
da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#482

"Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote in message 
news:9rcih8-22k.ln1@llondel.org...
> NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:
>
>>
>> Although apparently sendmail is a pain to setup,
>> perhaps that's easier than first trying some DNS to
>> get the IP of the email of the recipient?
>>
>> Can I by-pass my ISP to email?
>>
> The acid test is often whether you're on a dynamic or static IP address.
> Many mail servers won't accept traffic from dynamic IP addresses outside
> their own allocation. I run sendmail on a static IP address and don't have
> any problem.

I get an IP dynamically

> Some ISPs also block port 25 outbound from their own address
> space, or intercept it and redirect it to their own servers.
> -- 
Does that mean that when I telnet <IP> : port 25,
or any IP:port
my ISP might not allow it?
That would mean that my basic assumption that I can ping anything is wrong.
When I previously extended my mailer to handle SendAuthorisation, I used
telnet repeatedly to test it -- obviously; and got no indication of 
restrictions
on telnet  -- yet.
What does an ISP mean that they can "provide you with a basic 8nix account"?

Thanks,

Chris Glur.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487

NoHtmlMailsPlease <UsePlainText@dog.edu> wrote:
> I get an IP dynamically

Then the odds of email that you send directly being accepted is very low.

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491

NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:

> 
> 
> "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote in message
> news:9rcih8-22k.ln1@llondel.org...
>> NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Although apparently sendmail is a pain to setup,
>>> perhaps that's easier than first trying some DNS to
>>> get the IP of the email of the recipient?
>>>
>>> Can I by-pass my ISP to email?
>>>
>> The acid test is often whether you're on a dynamic or static IP address.
>> Many mail servers won't accept traffic from dynamic IP addresses outside
>> their own allocation. I run sendmail on a static IP address and don't
>> have any problem.
> 
> I get an IP dynamically
> 
>> Some ISPs also block port 25 outbound from their own address
>> space, or intercept it and redirect it to their own servers.
>> 
> Does that mean that when I telnet <IP> : port 25,
> or any IP:port
> my ISP might not allow it?
> That would mean that my basic assumption that I can ping anything is
> wrong. When I previously extended my mailer to handle SendAuthorisation, I
> used telnet repeatedly to test it -- obviously; and got no indication of
> restrictions
> on telnet  -- yet.

If you've used telnet and it works, giving a response from the smtp server 
you're expecting, then you don't have the problem. The network can't easily 
determine what program you're using to initiate connections, it just sees a 
connect to port 25 and doesn't care whether it's you playing with telnet or 
your mail program sending mail.

> What does an ISP mean that they can "provide you with a basic 8nix
> account"?
> 
To me it means you can use ssh to connect to a machine on their network and 
get a shell prompt where you can run standard unix commands. I have one, 
it's really useful at times.

-- 
Dave
da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493

On 2011-08-14, Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
> NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote in message
>> news:9rcih8-22k.ln1@llondel.org...
>>> NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Although apparently sendmail is a pain to setup,
>>>> perhaps that's easier than first trying some DNS to
>>>> get the IP of the email of the recipient?
>>>>
>>>> Can I by-pass my ISP to email?
>>>>
>>> The acid test is often whether you're on a dynamic or static IP address.
>>> Many mail servers won't accept traffic from dynamic IP addresses outside
>>> their own allocation. I run sendmail on a static IP address and don't
>>> have any problem.
>> 
>> I get an IP dynamically
>> 
>>> Some ISPs also block port 25 outbound from their own address
>>> space, or intercept it and redirect it to their own servers.
>>> 
>> Does that mean that when I telnet <IP> : port 25,
>> or any IP:port
>> my ISP might not allow it?

Yes. Your ISP might have a firewall which throws away all packets which
are directed to port 25. 

>> That would mean that my basic assumption that I can ping anything is

Ping does not go to port 25.

>> wrong. When I previously extended my mailer to handle SendAuthorisation, I
>> used telnet repeatedly to test it -- obviously; and got no indication of
>> restrictions
>> on telnet  -- yet.
>
> If you've used telnet and it works, giving a response from the smtp server 
> you're expecting, then you don't have the problem. The network can't easily 
> determine what program you're using to initiate connections, it just sees a 
> connect to port 25 and doesn't care whether it's you playing with telnet or 
> your mail program sending mail.
>
>> What does an ISP mean that they can "provide you with a basic 8nix
>> account"?

It usually means that they provide aan account that you can log into
with some basic set of programs you canrun. What basic means depends on
the ISP.

>> 
> To me it means you can use ssh to connect to a machine on their network and 
> get a shell prompt where you can run standard unix commands. I have one, 
> it's really useful at times.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#477

NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:

> 
> During the week I've only got access to a wireless
> connection, for which I had to buy a win7 netbook,
> because the wireless-terminal has no linux driver.

Pull another one.

This total fabrication will never fly.

And wehn you claim something about linux, make sure the next time that you 
have actually seen a linux machine running

Don't you wintrolls have a life?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478

On 2011-08-11, NoHtmlMailsPlease <UsePlainText@dog.edu> wrote:
> The user interface and text-handling facilities of my
> LinuxETHoberon is so nice, that I hate to have to paste
> the text to something like `evolution` to send it,
> especially since I fetch mail by LinuxETHoberon.
>
> The first time my ISP introduced sendAuthorisation,
> I modified my LinuxETHoberon to handle it. Then a
> few years later the ISP used a different type of 
> sendAuthorisation.  And I'm not interested to 
> modify my code again. The novelty had gone.
>
> Some one said "use sendmail or equivalent to
> bypass your ISP's mail-server".
> Which sounds feasible.

Short answer: it isn't.

Long answer: it is _if_

 1) You've got a static IP address, and

 2) You set up an MX record for the address from which you're sending.

 3) Nobody else at your ISP ever does something dumb and get your IP
    address range blacklisted. 

> If I've got an inet connection, I can ping any IP.
> and telnet any IP.  So I can talk to the recipient's
> mail-server. 

Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent from dynamic IP
addresses, from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
by MX records, from IP addresses in blacklisted ranges that contain a
lot of 'bots, and so on.

I used to use qmail (a sendmail replacement) configure to send mail
directly to the destination.  It stopped working consistently years
and years ago because of restrictions many servers are placing on
inbound mail.

> Can I by-pass my ISP to email?

Yes.  You don't need to use your ISP, but you do need to use a "real"
relay server that the rest of the world trusts.  It's possible, but
difficult to set one up yourself.  It's easier to use Google's (though
there are issues with using arbitrary "from" addresses).  You could
also sign up for an account with some other provider that provides
e-mail service (panix.com, et.).

-- 
Grant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479

Hello,

Grant Edwards a écrit :
> 
> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
> by MX records,

How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#486

On 2011-08-13, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Grant Edwards a ?crit :
>> 
>> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
>> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
>> by MX records,
>
> How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
> which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?

nslookup
set type=mx
host.name.ca

(or whatever your email address is)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#488

unruh a écrit :
> On 2011-08-13, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Grant Edwards a ?crit :
>>> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
>>> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
>>> by MX records,
>> How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
>> which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?
> 
> nslookup
> set type=mx
> host.name.ca
> 
> (or whatever your email address is)

What does my e-mail address have to do with the above statement ?
I rephrase :
A host connects to some mail server from IP address a.b.c.d.
How does the mail server know that IP address a.b.c.d is pointed to by
an MX record ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489

Pascal Hambourg wrote:

> unruh a écrit :
>> On 2011-08-13, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Grant Edwards a ?crit :
>>>> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
>>>> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to
>>>> by MX records,
>>> How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
>>> which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?
>> 
>> nslookup
>> set type=mx
>> host.name.ca
>> 
>> (or whatever your email address is)
> 
> What does my e-mail address have to do with the above statement ?
> I rephrase :
> A host connects to some mail server from IP address a.b.c.d.
> How does the mail server know that IP address a.b.c.d is pointed to by
> an MX record ?

Slight terminology thing here. I don't care about MX records. My system is 
configured to reject mail from anything without a reverse DNS. It's pretty 
good, although there has been the odd occasion when a genuine sender got 
rejected because of a DNS issue. However, many dynamic allocations do have 
reverse DNS associated with them, usually in the form of <mangled-IP-
address>.isp, so other checks are required.

-- 
Dave
da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#492

On 2011-08-14, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
> unruh a ?crit :
>> On 2011-08-13, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Grant Edwards a ?crit :
>>>> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
>>>> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
>>>> by MX records,
>>> How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
>>> which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?
>> 
>> nslookup
>> set type=mx
>> host.name.ca
>> 
>> (or whatever your email address is)
>
> What does my e-mail address have to do with the above statement ?

You wanted to know what ip address corresponds to what IP address. I
told you how to find out. If you do not want to find out, that is up to
you.

> I rephrase :
> A host connects to some mail server from IP address a.b.c.d.
> How does the mail server know that IP address a.b.c.d is pointed to by
> an MX record ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494

unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes:
> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>> unruh a ?crit :
>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>>>> Grant Edwards a ?crit :

>>>>> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
>>>>> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
>>>>> by MX records,
>>>> How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
>>>> which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?
>>> 
>>> nslookup
>>> set type=mx
>>> host.name.ca
>>> 
>>> (or whatever your email address is)
>>
>> What does my e-mail address have to do with the above statement ?
>
> You wanted to know what ip address corresponds to what IP address.
> I told you how to find out. If you do not want to find out, that is
> up to you.

The original claim was that MTAs reject mail from addresses which are
not the target of an MX record.  Pascal's point is that this is nonsense
because they'd have to discover the MX record given an IP address, which
isn't possible.

Your answer was to the opposite question.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#495

On 2011-08-15, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes:
>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>>> unruh a ?crit :
>>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>>>>> Grant Edwards a ?crit :
>
>>>>>> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
>>>>>> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
>>>>>> by MX records,
>>>>> How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
>>>>> which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?
>>>> 
>>>> nslookup
>>>> set type=mx
>>>> host.name.ca
>>>> 
>>>> (or whatever your email address is)
>>>
>>> What does my e-mail address have to do with the above statement ?
>>
>> You wanted to know what ip address corresponds to what IP address.
>> I told you how to find out. If you do not want to find out, that is
>> up to you.
>
> The original claim was that MTAs reject mail from addresses which are
> not the target of an MX record.  Pascal's point is that this is nonsense
> because they'd have to discover the MX record given an IP address, which
> isn't possible.

Your return address contains (or rather should contain) an MX host name. 
You IP address is perhaps
associated with a host name, which could have an MX record. Either could
be used (whether it is sensible to look them up does not matter since
the recipient can reject email at his own whim.)

>
> Your answer was to the opposite question.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#496

unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> unruh <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes:
>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>>>> unruh a ?crit :
>>>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Grant Edwards a ?crit :
>>
>>>>>>> Many/most e-mail servers will ignore mail sent [...]
>>>>>>> from IP addresses that don't belong to machines pointed to 
>>>>>>> by MX records,
>>>>>> How do you know that somewhere in the DNS space there is an MX record
>>>>>> which points to a host name which points to a given IP address ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> nslookup
>>>>> set type=mx
>>>>> host.name.ca
>>>>> 
>>>>> (or whatever your email address is)
>>>>
>>>> What does my e-mail address have to do with the above statement ?
>>>
>>> You wanted to know what ip address corresponds to what IP address.
>>> I told you how to find out. If you do not want to find out, that is
>>> up to you.
>>
>> The original claim was that MTAs reject mail from addresses which are
>> not the target of an MX record.  Pascal's point is that this is nonsense
>> because they'd have to discover the MX record given an IP address, which
>> isn't possible.
>
> Your return address contains (or rather should contain) an MX host name. 
> You IP address is perhaps
> associated with a host name, which could have an MX record. Either could
> be used (whether it is sensible to look them up does not matter since
> the recipient can reject email at his own whim.)

You're still addressing a different question to the one that was
actually asked.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#497

On 2011-08-15, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> The original claim was that MTAs reject mail from addresses which are
> not the target of an MX record.  Pascal's point is that this is nonsense
> because they'd have to discover the MX record given an IP address, which
> isn't possible.

In my experience, some SMTP servers look up the MX record for the host
name provided in the smtp "HELO" handshake.  The might also compare
that to the IP address that the connection is coming from -- but
that's less common since incoming and outgoing mail are often handled
by different machines.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! But was he mature
                                  at               enough last night at the
                              gmail.com            lesbian masquerade?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:54:54 +0200
"NoHtmlMailsPlease" <UsePlainText@dog.edu> wrote:

> LinuxETHoberon 
> ...
> Some one said "use sendmail or equivalent to
> bypass your ISP's mail-server".
> Which sounds feasible.

If you are on a linux box, you also have the option
to offload the authentication to a local MTA.

I'm using ssmtp on several gentoo boxes to this effect.

If your system can't deal with calling sendmail directly,
but requires a SMTP connection, you can still use something
like postfix, exim or sendmail, listening on 127.0.0.1 only,
to receive unauthenticated messages from localhost only,
while using your ISP's smarthost/mailhub with authentication
to get the mail off your box.

HTH,
s.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#483

"Stefan Schmiedl" <s@xss.de> wrote in message 
news:20110813193036.22f2b406@g128.local...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:54:54 +0200
> "NoHtmlMailsPlease" <UsePlainText@dog.edu> wrote:
>
>> LinuxETHoberon
>> ...
>> Some one said "use sendmail or equivalent to
>> bypass your ISP's mail-server".
>> Which sounds feasible.
>
> If you are on a linux box, you also have the option
> to offload the authentication to a local MTA.
>
Yes I started investigating that possibility, and afterwards I even
noticed from the code that OberonV4 [less preferred than LEO for me]
does pass the text to `sendmail`.

> I'm using ssmtp on several gentoo boxes to this effect.
>
> If your system can't deal with calling sendmail directly,
> but requires a SMTP connection, you can still use something
> like postfix, exim or sendmail, listening on 127.0.0.1 only,
> to receive unauthenticated messages from localhost only,
> while using your ISP's smarthost/mailhub with authentication
> to get the mail off your box.
>
I'd have to to look in my linux-files for my log-details, but
I failed to confirm:
1. LEO can communicate with 127.0.0.1
2. 127.0.0.1 can communicate with sendmail

OK, now I remember !
LEO, altho 'running on Linux [being a port of standAlone
Oberon] doesn't use the *nix tcp-stack.  It's got a `ppp` module
which talks to a serial-port module which talks to the dial-up modem.

The whole intention of 'hiding the complexity' has succeeded in
fooling me.

As a great believer in 'successive refinement' I note that by just
pasteing/importing my LEO composed text into the <what's its name>
mailer, I'm simulating <sending it to a MTA> so that should work.

The problem is that I don't get any feed-back from `sendmail` and
my connection/testing costs are high.

> HTH,
> s.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481

On Thu, 2011-08-11, NoHtmlMailsPlease wrote:
> The user interface and text-handling facilities of my
> LinuxETHoberon is so nice, that I hate to have to paste
> the text to something like `evolution` to send it,
> especially since I fetch mail by LinuxETHoberon.

What's "a LinuxETHoberon"? I remember hearing about the Oberon
environment, but that was 20 years ago.  I will assume below that it
is (among other things) a mail client.

> The first time my ISP introduced sendAuthorisation,
> I modified my LinuxETHoberon to handle it. Then a
> few years later the ISP used a different type of 
> sendAuthorisation.  And I'm not interested to 
> modify my code again. The novelty had gone.

Your only realistic options are

- Your mail program relays mail to your ISP's server. Then it has to
  support whatever unfortunate authentication mechanisms your ISP
  chooses to use. (Mine chooses none: it relays all mail which comes
  from inside the ISP's network.)

- Your mail program can feed mail into the MTA of your Linux system
  (sendmail, postfix, exim ...) and let that one be resposible for
  relaying through the ISP's server. Any decent MTA has support for
  your ISP's authentication mechanism.

If "LinuxETHoberon" cannot do either of those and you don't want to
hack it, you're out of luck.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web