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

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1704 > unrolled thread

Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

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

Contents

  Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-11 17:52 +0000
    Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2012-10-11 20:28 +0100
      Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-10-11 22:17 +0200
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-11 23:53 +0100
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2012-10-12 13:12 +1100
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-12 09:54 +0000
              Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2012-10-13 00:42 +1100
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2012-10-12 15:47 +0100
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-10-12 10:59 +0200
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-10-15 15:30 +0000
            Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-15 20:40 +0000
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-15 23:32 +0100
              Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-10-16 01:36 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> - 2012-10-12 01:13 -0500
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-10-12 11:02 +0200
          Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-13 04:49 +0000
            Re: Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> - 2012-10-13 01:51 -0500
              Re (3): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 08:10 +0000
          Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-13 08:48 +0000
          Re (3): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 18:59 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfs.info> - 2012-10-12 07:22 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2012-10-12 15:58 +0100
      Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-12 09:54 +0000
    Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-11 21:21 +0100
      Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-12 09:54 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-12 22:40 +0100
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 08:10 +0000
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Bob Hauck <postmaster@avalanche.org> - 2012-10-14 08:38 -0400
              Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 18:36 +0000
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-14 14:25 +0100
              Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 18:37 +0000
                Re: Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-14 23:44 +0100
                  Re (3+): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-15 11:46 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1712

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:17:08 +0200, David Brown wrote:

> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
> going directly to its own email relays, unless you have a special
> arrangement with them or have an account (such as a "professional"
> account) that allows such access.

What they actually block is Port 25.  They still allow outgoing Port 587, 
because that uses SMTPAUTH.  I know, because I have my home machines use 
Port 587 to send my mail via the servers at my domain's hosting company 
instead of my ISP's servers.

-- 
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Talk is cheap because the supply
always exceeds the demand.

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

#1720

David Brown wrote:
> 
> The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
> all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
> calls it.  You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the
> power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a
> delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message.
> But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own
> server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking
> your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.

I avoid my ISP's mail relay. All it takes is someone else sending enough 
spam to offend an RBL and a lot of mail gets screwed up. In the past I've 
used ISPs whose mail servers were not exactly reliable, too. There's also 
the point that in the UK, ISPs are supposed to be keeping records of all 
sorts of things that pass through their servers, so if my stuff doesn't 
touch their servers (in either direction, my primary MX records point to my 
IP address) it makes it a bit harder for people to monitor my 
communications. Not that they're that interesting anyway :-)

I don't send enough email for server load to be a problem, and I doubt if 
it's much more effort to send it direct than to a smarthost. It's probably 
more environmentally friendly to avoid bothering the smarthost, too.

Dave

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

#1717

In article <b7jjk9-0gn.ln1@llondel.org>, David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote: 

> no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
> > 
> > Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> > access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
> > can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
> > 
> > Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
> > from my installed `sendmail`?
> > 
> That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your 
> new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a 
> dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a 
> static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my 
> ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on 
> the local machine to do the job.
> 
 Does that mean that with only a dynamic IP, I can't send directly?
 Years ago, under RH6.2, my logs show that I sent using:
 `cat SampleMail | sendmail -t -f <my email-adr>`
 So then did sendmail just forward it to my ISP?
 
 From the RFC, which is quiet simple, I recoded my client, when 
 TXAuthorisation became necessary. But I don't know how the 
 bigger-picture of sending directly to a remote pop-server
 works. And I'd like to lean by first communicating between
 my own PC's users: root <-> sndml
 Using: `cat SampleMail2 | sendmail -t -f root`
 with a minimal <SampleMail>
 wrote something in /var/*/spool/*
 
 But how would I do a full cycle:
 Send from root -> sndml - reply-> read reply by root ?
 
 == TIA.

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

#1708

no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.

> Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
> can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.

Why do you think there's a correlation between not being able to use your
old ISP's SMTP server and not being able to email to the mailing lists?

Your mailing lists are presumably using an ISP-specific email address -
from your old ISP. However, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use
your new ISP's SMTP server to deliver email using your old (but valid)
email address.

Chris

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

#1715

In article <jbmjk9xmon.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote: 

> no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
> 
> > Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> > access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
> > can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
> 
> Why do you think there's a correlation between not being able to use your
> old ISP's SMTP server and not being able to email to the mailing lists?
> 
> Your mailing lists are presumably using an ISP-specific email address -
> from your old ISP. However, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use
> your new ISP's SMTP server to deliver email using your old (but valid)
> email address.
> 
 I didn't want to mention that that one too is OOO, and will be fixed
 real-soon-now, for the LAST MONTH.  Everything is going to shit,
 since control was handed to the natives here.
 
I'm <in the jungle, in a war situation>, so when I go on-line, I just
want to be able to <shoot a reply> to my mail-lists who KNOW
me, and are not expected to block me.

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

#1721

no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm <in the jungle, in a war situation>, so when I go on-line, I just
> want to be able to <shoot a reply> to my mail-lists who KNOW
> me, and are not expected to block me.

You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
Chris

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

#1727

In article <rbfmk9xu8b.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote: 

> no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm <in the jungle, in a war situation>, so when I go on-line, I just
> > want to be able to <shoot a reply> to my mail-lists who KNOW
> > me, and are not expected to block me.
> 
> You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
> Chris

Is there any 'gmail account' withOUT TxAuth?

AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's
know me as <my ISP1's ID>.

Re-applying to each mail-list as my gmail-ID, is opening
a whole NEW canOworms. Just consider the traffic of THIS
thread to try to get a simple answer.

Besides I HATE using the web-2 gmail horror.

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

#1728

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:10:53 +0000 (UTC), no.top.post@gmail.com <no.top.post@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <rbfmk9xu8b.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote: 
>
>> no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
>> > I'm <in the jungle, in a war situation>, so when I go on-line, I just
>> > want to be able to <shoot a reply> to my mail-lists who KNOW
>> > me, and are not expected to block me.
>> 
>> You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
>> Chris
>
> Is there any 'gmail account' withOUT TxAuth?
>
> AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's
> know me as <my ISP1's ID>.

You can attach multiple aliases to a Gmail account.


> Re-applying to each mail-list as my gmail-ID, is opening
> a whole NEW canOworms. Just consider the traffic of THIS
> thread to try to get a simple answer.
>
> Besides I HATE using the web-2 gmail horror.

They do POP and IMAP too.

-- 
Bob Hauck

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

#1730 — Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <slrnk7lchd.h6d.postmaster@bigbird.haucks.org>, Bob Hauck <postmaster@avalanche.org> wrote: 

> >> You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
> > AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's
> > know me as <my ISP1's ID>.
>  You can attach multiple aliases to a Gmail account.

Surely me@gmail.com will NOT be sent as
me1@absamail.co.za ?! Else that would open the spam-door WIDE?!

I'll goog: gmail+%22multiple+aliases%22

> > Besides I HATE using the web-2 gmail horror.
> 
> They do POP and IMAP too.

I've heard so, but at this rate I'd be dead before I opened THAT door.

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

#1729

In article <rbfmk9xu8b.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies
<chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
> You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.

no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there any 'gmail account' withOUT TxAuth?
> AFAIK the mail-lists initiated in the 90's know me as <my ISP1's ID>.

> Re-applying to each mail-list as my gmail-ID, is opening
> a whole NEW canOworms. Just consider the traffic of THIS
> thread to try to get a simple answer.

You're hearing me but missing what I'm trying to suggest!

You have stated that you can receive messages sent to your old ISP's
email address. You have also stated that you're struggling to find
any way of using your current ISP to send email addresses at all, and
(reasonably enough) you can't use your old ISP to send email. So there's
no problem keeping your existing (old) email address. The difficulty is
in finding somewhere/somehow to send email messages.

My suggestion is to use Gmail's SMTP service to allow you to send messages
using your old email address. You authenticate using your Gmail
credentials, but the message has a "From: " header of your old
address. This then bypasses any email service offered by your current
broken ISP, and avoids the need to try and use your old ISP (which you
can't anyway).

Chris

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

#1731 — Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <a3rqk9x37t.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote: 

> 
> In article <rbfmk9xu8b.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies
> <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
> > You have a gmail account, which accepts authenticated SMTP.
> 
> My suggestion is to use Gmail's SMTP service to allow you to send 
> messages using your old email address. You authenticate using your
> Gmail credentials, but the message has a "From: " header of your
> old address. 

That will be great if it's possible.
Gmail KNOWS me from my login and the first/easiest
way to stop spam-Tx is to prevent a false "From:" field.

Why did they introduce the extra hurdle of TxAuthenication
and leave false "From:" fields open?

I've got a 'hand crafted' pop & smtp facility, so that I can
edit any thing down-to-the-last-bit.
In fact, it's default mode, is that I must manually enter
all fields, including "From:".  Obviously I often make errors.
BTW ISP2 also had a default M$ web-based mail and I was
very happy with my modified ETHOberon set up for that:
1 clik each for: DirOfPop, FetchSelectedOne, SendMarkedFrame.
But  ISP2 has been OOO for months.

Investing the effort to pop gMail & smtp gMail will be justified
if it ALSO solves the currently described problem.

I'll seek my previous notes, to telnet/probe gmail.

Thanks.

PS. ETHOberon allows easy pating between multiple apps
viewable on the same screen. So here's some pop-headers.
Do they show the <jump path> of the mailS?
--------------------
Return-path: <linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Envelope-to: dingdong@absamail.co.za
Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:26:28 +0200
Received: from mxl56v247.dotnetwork2.co.za ([41.77.56.247]:
7256 helo=s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za)
	by aia-mx-vm-01 with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org>)
	id 1TMjwK-0003OJ-3N
	for dingdong@absamail.co.za; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:26:28 +0200
Authentication-Results: s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za; spf=none
Received: from unknown [209.132.180.67] (EHLO vger.kernel.org)
	by s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1)
	with ESMTP id 1d068705.0.5689670.00-421.8413091.s11p02m021.dotnetwork2.co.za (envelope-from <linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:26:26 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756328Ab2JLS0U (ORCPT <rfc822;dingdong@absamail.co.za>);
	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:26:20 -0400
Received: from mail.alkom-gsm.com.pl ([46.170.18.162]:37683 "EHLO
	mail.alkom-gsm.com.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756772Ab2JLS0S (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:26:18 -0400
Received: from www.alkom-gsm.com.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.alkom-gsm.com.pl (8.14.5/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q9CACHDX005074;
	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:12:17 +0200
From:	"Limanowa Jarek Musial" <sezam2@alkom-gsm.com.pl>
Reply-To: mr_paulandersonloanfrims@yahoo.com
-------- This next one is a self test from gmail to popISP1
Return-path: <dingdong@gmail.com>
Envelope-to: dingdong@absamail.co.za
Delivery-date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:44:55 +0200
Received: from mxl56v247.dotnetwork2.co.za ([41.77.56.247]:15840 helo=s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za)
	by aia-mx-vm-01 with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <dingdong@gmail.com>)
	id 1TIRJn-000LQp-3L; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:44:55 +0200
Authentication-Results: s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za; spf=pass
Received: from unknown [209.85.223.177]
	by s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel
	with SMTP id 64db8605.0.2452769.00-419.3586398.s11p02m002.dotnetwork2.co.za (envelope-from <dingdong@gmail.com>);
	Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:44:54 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e14so14199320iej.22
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=uXkGbfzWE6tmHNl4zuFIkGo9bgRF0tJrwWiauyuKv6U=;
        b=yI2UBZBFpRrRpCEgkNoMbzbFI2NEUc8jbhravw5WVnj97RxtNqLqnPBgXp8RgwuoYa
         LMtOEQULL0htgp0PtpZWEHSi5XXuhp+pZUt548ag2jIis287iSCb72QSTOOcPJzVg6CL
         eXPiQu+dUlsIQD6RuW9ssiE/xlOUZ6w+05y3z2ysWzdqiIxsMtbS4ywkhortfxRz74OD
         VmpCRIU+2n+EpHownot7TQPPJ/+XCKZERT6SU19Al8lKuZg09QV+tQDsKF57OTwkB2AB
         c4LaOn4VtcAaibMqcFEYKxRCFIqo6AVokyqEQBjT8E2EXD1EiZqCXk5Y/IwcpOeq6kDn
         WX1Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.194.138 with SMTP id hw10mr4065642igc.11.1349041493213;
 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.53.73 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:44:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CACe=ECqUesVgtZP6e+mCjFe6foMvbwhM8B+uSTxrfDp6qOQx_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: re. email failures
From: chris glur <dingdong@gmail.com>

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

#1735 — Re: Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> I'll seek my previous notes, to telnet/probe gmail.

You'll need to use openssl s_client rather than nc/telnet, because
gmail only accepts authenticated email via SMTP/SSL or possibly SMTP/TLS
(I forget).

Chris

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

#1736 — Re (3+): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <1srrk9xnc7.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>, Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> wrote: 

> no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'll seek my previous notes, to telnet/probe gmail.
> 
> You'll need to use openssl s_client rather than nc/telnet, because
> gmail only accepts authenticated email via SMTP/SSL or possibly SMTP/TLS
> (I forget).

Before investigating 'SMTP/SSL or possibly SMTP/TLS'
I must confirm that mutt can send/reply without falsefying the
sender.

Thanks.
==============
I meant WITH a falsefied sender.
So that I can let gmail pretend I'm the original ISP1-sender.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web