Re: Exim vs. Win95

[Don Strayer <dstrayer@sadt.com>]

On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 08:38:22PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Don Strayer wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The message in exim's rejectlog on the gateway says (lightly edited):
> > 
> > 1999-07-13 21:37:05 unqualified sender rejected: <username> \
> > H=system2.sadt.com (system2.sadt.com.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa) [192.168.1.33]
> > 
> > The ...in-addr.arpa business looks fishy, but mail accepted from System
> > 1 causes a similar-looking mainlog entry:
> > 
> > 1999-07-13 21:29:34 114Dra-0003WK-00 <= dstrayer@sadt.com H=system1.sadt.com \
> > (system1.sadt.com.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa) [192.168.1.34] P=smtp S=675 \
> > id=01BECD76.0CF26600@system1.sadt.com.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa
> > 
> > What is exim trying to tell me?
> 
> It is trying to tell you that you either need a mail client that fully
> qualfies the sender as user@host.domain.tld OR you need to tell exim to
> accept unqualified addresses from certain hosts/networks.

Thanks, that was the hint I needed.  I put

	sender_unqualified_hosts = system2.sadt.com

in exim.conf and the problem appears to be solved.

The rest of this is non-Debian-related...

I'm still puzzled as to why exim objected to one machine but not the
other, and I'd really prefer to fix the problem at the sender rather
than apply this band-aid. There are probably some people reading this
who remember a few things from the dark days when they were using
Windows. As I go wading into the Windows documentation, would anyone
care to offer advice on convincing Win95 and/or Outlook to identify
themselves with a proper fully qualified address? (I suggest private
email to avoid further cluttering the mailing list.)

Regards,
Don Strayer