🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <378@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes:
>Hello there.
>
>	I have just finished installing smail on this system.  Now that
>I am done I have a question.  Since it is apparent that smail is able to
>do smart routing, what else does sendmail do that smail does not? 
>

From what I have heard, smail doesn't work well with DECnet mail.

--------

Internet: akay@cadev4.intel.com

Smail (or, at least, pre-3.0 versions thereof) is a UUCP router that
makes a UUCP site RFC822 conformant. It also makes them look like Sendmail
sites (they even ripped off the Sendmail format for Message-Ids). It is
usually quite sufficient for a UUCP machine.

Sendmail is an inter-network mail handler. It is particularly handy on
the Internet since it has built-in the SMTP routines used on the Internet
to move mail around. (Silence, please, from the MMDF disciples in the
back row.) On a more pragmatic level it has some very nifty aliasing
features (like piping mail to a program or saving it in an arbitrarily
named file) that are glaringly absent from Smail. Many sites will never
need those features, but then, some will.

[In this article "Smail" refers to any version that predates 3.0. Version
3.0, which was written from scratch by a couple of masochists at Amdahl,
resembles Sendmail more than it does earlier Smail. It's also not yet
publically available.]

In article <3401@mipos3.intel.com>, akay@cadsqa.UUCP (Allen Kay) wrote:
>In article <378@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes:
>>I have just finished installing smail on this system.  Now that
>>I am done I have a question.  Since it is apparent that smail is able to
>>do smart routing, what else does sendmail do that smail does not? 
>
>From what I have heard, smail doesn't work well with DECnet mail.

smail (at least up to 2.5) also doesn't exchange mail using SMTP
(RFC821).  That at least means you can't use it (alone) to accept
mail on TCP port 25 or send mail over TCP/IP.

-- 
Samuel Lam     {alberta,watmath,uw-beaver,cs.ubc.ca}!ubc-cs!van-bc!skl

In article <6618@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes about sendmail:
>back row.) On a more pragmatic level it has some very nifty aliasing
>features (like piping mail to a program or saving it in an arbitrarily
>named file) that are glaringly absent from Smail. Many sites will never

If anyone wants piping to files/programs, I have a local mail delivery 
program "lmail" that allows smail sites to do this.  It is available 
from comp.sources.misc or directly from me.  




-- 
  Jon Zeeff			zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
  Support ISO 8859/1		zeeff%b-tech.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu
  Ann Arbor, MI			umix!b-tech!zeeff

In article <5029@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>, zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes:
> If anyone wants piping to files/programs, I have a local mail delivery 
> program "lmail" that allows smail sites to do this.  It is available 
> from comp.sources.misc or directly from me.  

Great, but does it has a DEBUG mode :-) ?

     Steve

-- 
Stephen J. Friedl        3B2-kind-of-guy            friedl@vsi.com
V-Systems, Inc.        I speak for me only      attmail!vsi!friedl
Santa Ana, CA  USA       +1 714 545 6442    {backbones}!vsi!friedl
-------Nancy Reagan on Usenix in San Diego: "Just say *go*"-------

In article <378@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes:

>	I have just finished installing smail on this system.  Now that
>I am done I have a question.  Since it is apparent that smail is able to
>do smart routing, what else does sendmail do that smail does not? 

     Well that diepends on the version of smart mail involved.  The level
3.x smart mail (currently 3.1 I believe) is intended as a complete replacement
for sendmail.  Only thing that smail 3.1 should be missing is some of the
sendmail bugs and some of the sendmail confusion (ala sendmail.cf).  If you
are running smail 2.3 or smail 2.5 then you are missing a great deal.  You
cannot mail into files or into programs and you have no support for smtp.
These can all be worked arround.  I have adapted an "smtp" package and an
"lmail" package from comp.sources.unix to give me these facilities with smail
2.5.  If you're running 2.3, my sympathy and my hearty recommendation that you
upgrade.

---
Michael H. Warfield  (The Mad Wizard)	| gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw
  (404)  270-2123 / 270-2098		| mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist is sure of it!

Smail3.1 does speak SMTP. It also includes support for SMTP over UUCP.
The smail binary gets linked to several different filenames, one of which
is rsmtp. rsmtp, like rmail, is intended as the receiving end of UUCP
mail, but rsmtp expects to find things in SMTP format. It is also fairly
simple to kludge up Smail3.1 to do batched SMTP, if you really care to
bother.

I am trying since a couple of days now to bring up smail (2.5/1.14) on
a level that it will be accepted by our backbone hp4nl (previously mcvax).
In this version I am missing support for Cc: fields and Reply-To: and
In-Reply-To: fields. Especially the absence of a Cc: field scanner can cause
mail to bounce between major backbones like in the following example:

	Subject: acceptance test
	From: gertjan@atcmpe
	Cc: gertjan
	To: user@hp4nl
results in 
	Subject: acceptance test
	From: gertjan@atcmpe
	Cc: gertjan@hp4nl.nluug.nl
	To: user@hp4nl
at the target site.
The empty domain address in the Cc: field will be filled in by hp4nl to
their domain address. That causes it to bounce between their two computers
hp4nl.nluug.nl and mcvax.cwi.nl something what they don't like.

So if smail3.x should be accepted in netland, let it be a good MTA mailer,
comparable to sendmail and mmdf. Proper handling of RFC822 is first demand.
Smail2.5 is considered to be a good LAN mailer but to send mail out of the door
is done by sendmail still.

My conclusion is that smail is very good in what it does, it is difficult
to bring it up as an acceptable MTA mailer without using sendmail (or mmdf).
-- 
UUCP and other network	  )\/(	..!hp4nl!kunivv1!atcmpe!gertjan
  connections via mcvax	  )/\(	gertjan@atcmp.nl (at due time)
This note does not necessarily represent the position of AT Computing BV

Two points:

Reply-To: and In-Reply-To: lines are a function of the user agent, not the
delivery agent. Specifically, it is the user agent that must insert an
In-Reply-To: header when a message is replied to, and it is the user agent
that must notice a Reply-To: line and use it to construct an address to
reply to.

Smail3 is RFC822 conformant and munges Cc: lines on outbound mail correctly.
A major goal of the authors is to make it into a complete plug-in replacement
for sendmail, so when it is released you should have little trouble.

The addresses in the header should not be in "local form" when leaving
the site.  That is ..

	Cc: user

should be

	Cc: user@domain
-- 
<-- David Herron; an MMDF guy                              <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-- ska: David le casse\*'      {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ...
<--          Stop!  Wait!  I didn't mean to!

In article <6618@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes:
>On a more pragmatic level it [sendmail] has some very nifty aliasing
>features (like piping mail to a program or saving it in an arbitrarily
>named file) that are glaringly absent from Smail. Many sites will never
>need those features, but then, some will.

I've found that creating a paths entry like:

site.domain	| /usr/lib/mail/gateway %s

Works just fine for piping mail destined for a particular system through a
program on my machine.  Stuff going to a particular user (or daemon) I still
use the aliases file (this is under SCO XENIX) which supports the things you
mention.


Jon -- jon@bodedo.ucm.org

	"Anywhere is within walking distance... if you have the time."