Re: mutt, gnome terminal, xemacs, gnuserv, debian etch

[Chris Bannister <mockingbird@ihug.co.nz>]

On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:15:54PM +0000, s. keeling wrote:
> Chris Bannister <mockingbird@ihug.co.nz>:
> >  On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 02:47:21PM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> > > The package chain is as follows:
> > > 
> > > INCOMING MAIL:  pop3 server @ my ISP -->  getmail4  -->  maildrop  -->  
> > > [maildir]  --> mutt
> 
> pop3@ISP --> fetchmail --> procmail --> mutt

So fetchmail doesn't send it through exim4?

from man fetchmail ...
[..]
    As each message is retrieved fetchmail normally delivers it via SMTP
    to port 25 on the machine it is running on (localhost), just as
    though it were being passed in over a normal TCP/IP link.
[..]
    If no port 25 listener is available, but your  fetchmail
    configuration was  told  about  a  reliable local MDA, it will use
    that MDA for local delivery instead.

An MTA is priority standard.

> >  Does getmail4 feed the mail through exim4, fetchmail does.
> > 
> > > OUTGOING MAIL:  smtp server @ my ISP  <--  exim4  <--  mutt
> > 
> >  Try dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config
> >  Are you sure the smtp server is set correctly? What error messages are
> >  you getting in the exim4 logs?
> 
> A working Exim config can be very picky about a couple of lower level
> options, such as re-writing headers and hiding header re-writing.
> With those set wrong, mail will look alright until you send to a
> system that's more suspicious, and your mail will go silently into the
> bit bucket.

I think I see what you are saying. Is there a command to check the
config? Is the checking not good enough? So the system that's more
suspicious would not be exim?

-- 
Chris.
======
" ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of
rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government
conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness."
Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005.