[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fetchmail/exim chokes on a message...

On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 03:10:38PM -0400, Naitik Shah wrote:
| On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:47:59PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson (dman@dman13.dyndns.org) wrote:

| ... [more stuff here]
| > One solution, one I would recommend anyways, is to add
| >     with mda '/usr/sbin/sendmail %T'
| > to each of those stanzas.  That way fetchmail will use the local pipe
| > interface instead of SMTP inject the mail into your MTA (exim).  This
| > interface is simpler, more robust, and not prone to errors like the
| > above.
| I'm having similar problems with my account too, and I was wondering if
| using a pipe is the best solution.

I think so.  I think having fetchmail use SMTP by default is a really
bad idea.

| Wouldnt this mean it would start a new process for every message it
| recieves,

Yes.  So does connecting to exim via SMTP (the listening daemon
fork()s another process to handle the connection while the listener
keeps listening for new connections).

| or at the lease every account?

| Is changing the exim option for strict headers better?

The pipe interface is simpler with less opportunity for something to
go wrong and less opportunity for bugs in the implementation.

Nonetheless, the strict headers checking is orthogonal to how exim
receives the mail.  You can turn of the strict checking if you don't
want it or keep it if you do want it.


If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing that:
   1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"
   2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make
        such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends
        itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or the WWW.
   3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
   4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may
        be included on your message

Attachment: pgp9GY5pJIG5u.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: