Sendmail Enabler for Mac OS X

gulker writes "It's really nice to be able to use sendmail as a SMTP server on a PowerBook if you move around a lot. But enabling sendmail on OS X is non-trivial, and while a good tutorial exists, the stock Mac OS X 10.2 package is missing the m4 macro processor needed to regenerate sendmail.cf. So it was great news to hear about Bernard Teo's Sendmail Enabler, a cool Aqua-GUI-interface sendmail 'configurator' for Mac OS X."

Comments

Sendmail?!

[justinkim]

Just install postfix instead. Secure, easy to set up, right there in Fink. What's not to like?

Re:Sendmail?!

[GiMP]

You forgot to mention goatse.cx like every other troll. What is wrong with Postfix? I use it without any problems.

Re:Sendmail?!

[Mikey-San]

If anything, Sendmail is less secure than Postfix, bro. And not part of the OS? Well, get ready for Postfix, 'cause it's in Panther in the place of Sendmail. ;-)

Re:Sendmail?!

[EvilDrew]

You'll get your wish. The developers release of 10.3 (Panther) uses Postfix by default.

Re:Sendmail?!

[sporty]

The fact it's not sendmail.

It's the case of software once being buggy now being deemed always buggy.

Remember the various bugs with ext3? Well, let's use the same idea. Ext3 will never be as stable as ext2, especially since it corrupts file systems.

Or apple. Apple never will make a fast system, since they always lag behind intel.

Can't we get past these childish prejiduces? Sendmail is pretty friggin cool. At least in sendmail, i can analyze the headers of a message, and if certain ones are present, do one thing vs another. And I don't need a third party util, like procmail to do it.

Re:Sendmail?!

[hobbit]

At least in sendmail, i can analyze the headers of a message, and if certain ones are present, do one thing vs another. And I don't need a third party util, like procmail to do it.

Are you kidding? Do you not understand the unix philosophy of "do one thing, and do it well"?

Re:Sendmail?!

[Arthur_5150]

> Well, get ready for Postfix, 'cause it's in Panther in the place of Sendmail I am using qmail since 2 years and i like it, what's difference with postfix ?

Re:Sendmail?!

[Arthur_5150]

Excuse me for my unformatted answer.

Re:Sendmail?!

[Znonymous Coward]

The main difference is that Postfix kicks ass. And it's widely accepted as "better" that anything else.

Re:Sendmail?!

[sporty]

No, I'm not kidding. If we seperated every single piece, you can suffer what some DB schema's suffer from, over normalization. qmail REALLY suffers from this in its goal of security.

If qmail for instance, since spamassassin doesn't know a thing about the mail system in front of it, it can't tell qmail not to bounce a message from a spammer.. nor can qmail figure this out. So now it bounces mail and then when it can't reach the spamemr, it bounced to postmaster. Joy.

I understand the philosophy of "do one thing and do it well". Do you understand trying to spread yourself too thin? Ever take a look at the redhat configuration scripts? THAT is spreading all of the functionality over too many things, that it is convoluded.

So let sendmail do what it does well.. process mail. Just so long as it doesn't try to do ftp and my other services as well.

Re:Sendmail?!

[davids-world.com]

Sendmail crashed / stalled / left-to-walk-the-dog all the time on the powerbook, needed to be rebooted. Sometimes I didn't notice and my outgoing email stayed in the outgoing queue for days.

After I installed Postfix, everything works like a breeze. Installing Postfix is quite simple -- because there are one or two pitfalls, I wrote a short step-by-step tutorial.

Re:Sendmail?!

[Arthur_5150]

Same for qmail.Is postfix under gpl ?

Re:Sendmail?!

[snero3]

I agree with you, Sendmail is extremly powerful if you know how to use it properly IE understand the config file.

That being said, not a lot of people really understand the config file at all (thus leaving open email relays for spammers etc) where as postfix, although not as powerful, is a hell of a lot easier to configure. Most people I know swap out sendmail for postfix becuase they can use all of the features of postfix and none of the features of sendmail(or very few).

What is the point of having really powerful software if you are unable to use it.

Re:Sendmail?!

[SewersOfRivendell]

It's the case of software once being buggy now being deemed always buggy.

Please. Sendmail has been providing remote root since 1983 and continues to do so. Just using Google should be enough to scare you away from it.

Re:Sendmail?!

[sporty]

And you know what, we should also quit the human race. Look at all the mistakes it has made.. just kill everyone in one large felt blast, eh?

So what were you saying about sendmail? Can't change etc?

Re:Sendmail?!

[__past__]

No, but unlike qmail, it is Free Software.

Re:Sendmail?!

[Uart]

Somehow I am not worried about someone trying to get remote root on my PowerBook though.

Maybe I'm not paranoid enough? Perhaps I am just asking to be "0wn0ZeD" or whatever the cool-kids say nowadays...

Re:Sendmail?!

[Anonymous Coward]

qmail is quite modular. If you really need your smtpd to do spam filtering, you can always replace qmail-smtpd with qpsmtpd, and plug it into spam assassin. Legendary qmail reliability/security/etc, except with the smtpd part written in... perl. Ok, maybe it sounds crazy, but I think it's still better than send*cough*remoteroot*cough*mail.

Personally, I run qmail (with the standard smtpd, not that perl one) on the mail server, and postfix on the mac laptop. Works for me. ;; nonyn

Re:Sendmail?!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what were you saying about sendmail? Can't change etc?

Um, yeah. It's monolithic design is it's downfall. qmail and postfix, both sensible modular packages, are kicking it's ass.

And you know what, we should also quit the human race. Look at all the mistakes it has made.. just kill everyone in one large felt blast, eh?
If you don't think the human race has more room for improvement than sendmail, that's just sad.

Yes, let's kill sendmail. There are better solutions.

Re:Sendmail?!

[sporty]

riiiight.. 'cept when you wanna do something complex.

Re:Sendmail?!

[PetWolverine]

Are you implying, based on the date on this page (which came up in the Google search you linked to), that a sendmail root exploit brought down the WTC?

Re:Sendmail?!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's modular. drop in a replacement smtpd if you're willing to make sacrifices for the features you need to "do something complex".

Qmail with the smtpd part redone in perl (qpsmtpd) still has a better security record than sendmail.

And you can do even _more_ complex things with it.

Re:Sendmail?!

[sporty]

Unless you know the sendmail language, I doubt you can attest for that.

Plus, it's in perl. Perl is notorious for memory/ipc issues when run for days at a clip.

Re:Sendmail?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you know the sendmail language, I doubt you can attest for that.

I haven't learned the sendmail language, but I have read a good deal about the many things can be done with it. Definitely an impressive tool.

But by learning perl I can do lots of other things, plus extend the smtpd in _any way_ concievable. I'd be very interested to hear what you can do with "the sendmail language" that you can't do with qpsmtpd. If it takes writing a bunch of sendmail stuff, well, then it's ok of the qpsmtpd equivilent requires writing an itsy bit of perl. Though the code is probably already available.

The point is, you really can do *anything* with it.

Plus, it's in perl. Perl is notorious for memory/ipc issues when run for days at a clip.

You don't have to run it for days "at a clip" (whatever that means). tcpserver starts a new instance of it for every connection, just like with qmail-smtpd. And tcpserver is bulletproof djb code, and is not written in perl of course.

Re:Sendmail?!

[Anonymous Coward]

most malicious hacking isn't really targeted.

laptops are far more vulnerable than desktops, because they're regularly plugged into hostile networks. or used on wireless networks.

So yes, if someone has a tool that scans 192.168.1.*:25 and they're on the same wireless net as you, they could very likely hack your powerbook through sendmail.

You should not run services you don't need, and you should never base your security strategy on "but nobody would want to hack me".

Always assume a malicious adversary. Always.

Why sendmail is good for Apple servers

[Nightlily]

I'm happy to hear some allowed us to enable Sendmail. I know there are other SMTP servers out there (Postfix), but Sendmail is not a horrible mail server. Yes, there are bugs (any product that is used will have bugs reported eventually). Now, Exchange server.... that's a horrible mail server.

The best part about this news is that it gives Mac users more options. Regardless if you like a project or not, the ability to choose between server products helps advance the Apple server platform.

Re:Why sendmail is good for Apple servers

[sid crimson]

Repeat after me: Exchange is not a mail server, it's a Groupware package.

Anyone using it strictly for mail deserves what they get. The rest of us deserve... well... erm. Nevermind. :-)

-sid

Re:Why sendmail is good for Apple servers

[Arthur_5150]

qmail is not a mail server too...its a mta (mail transfert agent) and you can use tcpserver as mail server or open the smtp server in inetd.conf, you right, don't confuse mail server and mta.....

It also might not work..

[mmontano]

Turning your own computer into a sendmail server only works if the recipient server trusts you and your machine.

A machine attached to a dial-up Earthlink account that is trying to sendmail through to an AOL email account looks a lot like a setup for spam.

As a result, many SMTP servers won't accept SMTP connections from unknown SMTP servers attached to unknown networks.

(I used to have a similar setup on my PB and used a variety of dial-up/wi-fi internet access and it rarely worked. I setup a private secure SMTP server for me and my friends and it works great.)

Re:It also might not work..

[bigredswitch]

"As a result, many SMTP servers won't accept SMTP connections from unknown SMTP servers attached to unknown networks."

I'm not an expert in this but isn't it more a case of mail servers not accepting connections from machines with dynamically allocated IP addresses?

Re:It also might not work..

[mmontano]

I've set up a private SMTP server that's attached to a cable-modem and it works flawlessy, yet my Internet IP address is dynamically assigned through DHCP.

For the major dial-up networks, JoiNet/UUNET/NetZero/EarthLink and so on, they probably assign an advertised (and therefore known) block of IP addresses to dial-up connections.

There are numerous settings in postmail/sendmail/qmail etc that control who can send mail through SMTP servers. From experience, many of these are enabled to prevent 'random' SMTP servers from relaying mail through them.

That's why I feel the Sendmail Enabler for Mac OS X could not be the magic elixir that it is tempting to make out of it.

Re:It also might not work..

[PoiBoy]

I have an SMTP server running on my cable modem, too, with a dynamic address. For the most part, it does work flawlessly.

However, some ISP's, notably AOL, no longer accept mail from dynamic IP addresses. Whenever I try and send email to an AOL address, it gets bounced back to me.

Of course, I could just relay my mail through my cable company's SMTP server, but this is a good excuse for me to not send email to AOL users.

Re:It also might not work..

[mmontano]

The further skinny is that I relay email only to my ISP's SMTP server, therefore it always goes through.

Me-(wherever I am) -> My private server at end of cable modem -> Cable provider's SMTP server

I also have my SMTP server configured to accept mail on a port other than '25' (like 8225), which permits me to use up dial-up providers such as Earthlink which block port 25 traffic from leaving their net.

Re:It also might not work..

[diverman]

I have been running an SMTP server from my house for a number of years now. Few (if any) mail servers are configured to block delivery from a "suspicious" hostname/address.

The way it works is that a mail server will only allow relaying (sending mail to a user that that particular server doesn't manage) from a source address that is within it's network/subnet (or other allowed subnets). A server almost always accepts a connection for email to be delivered to an address that it handles (ie. where it's the end of the line).

Running sendmail (or other SMTP servers) on your local machine will only enable you to queue up your mail. Sendmail (by default configurations) does not attempt to relay the mail through another server. It tries to go directly to the mail server responsible for handling the mail. Essentially, you would have your local sendmail only allow relaying from your local host (or other home machines), and the sendmail server would deliver it to where it has to go.

THese are not likely to be blocked because they are on dialup. Few people put a system in place that it going to try and "determine" if it's a dynamic or dialup IP address. There's no real way for the sendmail server to know, unless it subscribes to a maintained list. And that would likely result in many failed deliveries, as many lists are not terribly accurate (I've dealt with some for other purposes).

So, if it doesn't work, it will be for a small minority or emails to be delivered.

So, maybe you did something wrong. Maybe you had open relaying enabled. THAT is something mail servers will refuse connections for.

Just my $0.02 on a post I think was mod'd up too much. :)

-Alex

Re:It also might not work..

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah... I have been using my iMac as (among other things) a sendmail server for about a year, and everyone gets my mail. AAMOF, sometimes my Charter mail gets kicked back as SPAM but my own sever always works. And, uh, this is not new. Check out entropy.ch and O'Reilly - it's really fairly simple to do in the command line. This installer just makes it a bit easier.

Re:It also might not work..

[good soldier svejk]

So, maybe you did something wrong. Maybe you had open relaying enabled. THAT is something mail servers will refuse connections for.

Actually, AOL has recently started refusing mail from other ISP's adresses (other than their designated relays). here is an example bounce message.

The original message was received at Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:47:16 -0400 (EDT) from localhost [127.0.0.1]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
****@aol.com
(reason: 554- (RTR:BB) The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic )

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mailin-03.mx.aol.com 554- (RTR:BB) The IP address you are using to connect to AOL is a dynamic
554- (residential) IP address. AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions
554- from this IP address until your ISP removes this IP address from its list
554- of dynamic (residential) IP addresses. For additional information,
554 please visit http://postmaster.info.aol.com.

Re:It also might not work..

[byolinux]

Alternatively, a service like port995.com will give you an authorised SMTP server you can send from, anywhere.

I've been using it for a year or so, it's fantastic.

Re:It also might not work..

[diverman]

And AOL users are constantly not getting emails that are valid emails. An ex-coworker of mine was constantly bitching about not getting important emails from people.

Sooo... my conclusion... AOL sucks! Oh wait! We knew that already!

Others may follow this trend. But then again, it wouldn't matter if you just setup your local SMTP daemon to send mail through a relay just like an email client does. Then you use an authorized relay, but still gain the advantages of having your local MTA handle delivering mail.

-Alex

Re:It also might not work..

[good soldier svejk]

Others may follow this trend. But then again, it wouldn't matter if you just setup your local SMTP daemon to send mail through a relay just like an email client does. Then you use an authorized relay, but still gain the advantages of having your local MTA handle delivering mail.

You mean like a smarthost entry? Unless I find a third party open relay, I don't see how that helps me. My original problem is that both my relays (work and Comcast) restrict access. So I couldn't use either as a smarthost full time. That is why I relay locally; I don't want to reconfigure Mail.app twice a day. Swapping sendmail.cf out twice a day wouldn't be any more elegant.

AOL may not be violating RFC 821, strictly speaking, but blacklisting whole ranges of addresses without cause is a violation of the SMTP philosophy and etiquette. It is inverse spamming. SMTP is not meant to be controlled by a few ISPs and commercial entities. Everybody has a right to send non-abusive e-mail.

Re:It also might not work..

[diverman]

By tone, I get the feeling you are in disagreement with me somewhere, but I'm not quite sure, since I agree with pretty much all you said.

As for reconfiguring Mail.app? Why? I have all my SMTP servers configured at once, and if one fails, it prompts for the one to use. Personally, I think the default mail server of Mail.app should be tied into the network "Location". Actually, there are a few things that I think ought to be tied to the location.

-Alex

Re:It also might not work..

[good soldier svejk]

By tone, I get the feeling you are in disagreement with me somewhere, but I'm not quite sure, since I agree with pretty much all you said.

Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to be confrontational, I just wanted to be clear on what we were both saying. Although I consider myself a competent sendmail admin, and have built mid size (10,000 user) sendmail systems, it is complex enough that I could easily see myself missing a simple solution to my problem. I was trying to discern whether you were proposing one. AFAIK, smarthost would work great for most people but wouldn't solve my initial problem. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.

As for reconfiguring Mail.app? Why? I have all my SMTP servers configured at once, and if one fails, it prompts for the one to use. Personally, I think the default mail server of Mail.app should be tied into the network "Location". Actually, there are a few things that I think ought to be tied to the location.

For normal people that is probably great. But I want everything to just work transparently. My mail client shouldn't be asking me how to deliver half my messages. More importantly, ~500 of those 10,000 users have Macs. Some of those have Powerbooks. Probably all of those are MD/PhDs. Believe me, those people don't want any jib from their mail client. They screamed bloody murder when we cut off their external access to our relay. If they got an error requiring manual intervention everytime they sent a message from a different location I'd have to unplug my phone. My local relay config solves that problem. Unfortunately AOL has thrown me a curve with their disrespectful, draconian and arbitrary relay policy.

So to recap... My first paragraph was genuinely interrogatory, hoping you had a better idea on how I could accomplish my goal of transparent portable relaying from anywhere to anywhere. My second paragraph simply agreed with elaborated on your comments about AOL.

RIP: Sendmail

[Znonymous Coward]

Just as vsftpd is to wuftpd...
Postfix is to sendmail...
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Re:Spam Relay Enabler maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

The real advantage is that some Mac users will leave open port 25, allowing script kiddies to send their *Anonymous* emails from someone's Mac, instead of a useful computer such as a linux server.

OMG

[Znonymous Coward]

I this thread is making my sides hurt for laughing so much.

actually, m4(1) is in the Developer Tools

[Rich_Morin]

... but you'd still need to grab the Sendmail-specific macro files and such.

Re:actually, m4(1) is in the Developer Tools

[Goo.cc]

I personally think this is bullshit. Why the fuck should I need to install 300MB of crap just to configure Sendmail? M4 and the files to configure Sendmail should be included in the base install.

is this all i need

[sergeantmudd]

is sendmail all i need to start sending and receiving email on my own? i have a domain-name and website and I would like to run my own email. if i am running apple's mail, what do i need to do to get email from sendmail?

Re:is this all i need

[bedouin]

Well, you can make an alias from your UNIX mailbox, to Mail App's. Mail App uses normal UNIX boxes as far as I know.

Panter DP comes with Postfix...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just installed the MacOSX 10.3 Panther Developer Preview, and there is no trace of Sendmail.

Postfix comes installed, and disabled, by default. Nice!

What about Exim?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think exim is the best SMTP server for laptops, because it uses very little resources, is a snap to install, and is still highly configurable and very powerful. I use it on my PB12, and I'm very happy with it.

Could some one explain.

[goombah99]

I've always been confused by this. How does this gain anything? that is, presumbaly no matter where you are home, work on the road you have a ISP somewhere. and you send e-mail via them. If you dont have an ISP then how does send mail know where it can send its packets too and have them accepted?

Re:Could some one explain.

[good soldier svejk]

I've always been confused by this. How does this gain anything? that is, presumbaly no matter where you are home, work on the road you have a ISP somewhere. and you send e-mail via them. If you dont have an ISP then how does send mail know where it can send its packets too and have them accepted?

My ISP, Comcast, nee ATTbi, nee MediaOne, only allows relaying from their own addresses. I have the same policy on my sendmail servers at work ( I accept mail from external sources for internal routing, but not to relay to third parties). So if I am at work I can't relay off Comcast's servers and at home I can't relay off my own. By enabling sendmail in daemon mode on my loopback address (127.0.0.1, but not my public address) I can relay from anywhere no matter what email account I am using. The down side is that AOL has recently started refusing mail from Comcast's user IP range, so I can't e-mail my dad from home. Guess I'll need to move him to a better ISP.

Re:Could some one explain.

[bedouin]

For one thing, if you run your own mail server you KNOW whether or not your message was delivered. Another thing is that it will be delivered instantly, not 2 or 3 minutes after it was sent, like with some ISP's mail servers.

Re:Could some one explain.

[good soldier svejk]

Umhh...I should have mentioned that I use a Powerbook, so I need to send mail from multiple locations. I forget people still use desktops.

Re:Spam Relay Enabler maybe

[good soldier svejk]

It's really nice to be able to use sendmail as a SMTP server on a PowerBook if you move around a lot

No, it isn't.

How about, "I want to send out 15 million spams a day for my home based internet business, but I own a mac, what can I do?"

Seriously, you don't need sendmail to send out your email. That's what mail.app is for. Well, if you're not spammer, that is.

Yes it is. Just add,

DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp,Addr=127.0.0.1, Name=MTA')

to the m4 file before generating your .cf. That will make sendmail listen only on the loopback address. Then you can point Mail.app at your loopback address and relay from any physical location without any fear of becoming a spam relay. This solves problems for me. At work we don't allow external relaying. Likewise comcast won't let me relay from work. But I can relay off myself no matter where I am or what account I am using. The only problem is that recently AOL has started refusing my messages simply because they come froma NATed address. Bastards!!

You also might want to add.

define(`confDONT_BLAME_SENDMAIL', `GroupWritableDirPathSafe')

Otherwise sendmail will break everytime you run Software Update. You can fix it by chmoding / 755. Alternatively you can add a "chmod 755 /" to the the end of your /etc/rc (since most updates seem to require a reboot anyway).

Back in the day (OpenStep) Mail.app let you call sendmail as an app, but AFAIK it now needs to relay off an address. There may be a way around this but I don't know it.

Use smtp.mac.com instead...

[mactari]

I tend to agree with the assertion that you don't need sendmail on OS X; that's what Mail.app is for.

The only time I've had a problem with my ISP's own smtp server, Mail.app automatically asked if I didn't want to use smtp.mac.com to send my mail. I don't have a .Mac account, so I was awfully impressed with OS X's desire to get my mail through, rain, sleet, hail, or whatever the bytes were doing today.

That said, Commando-ing the command line is nearly always a good thing. Setting up a sendmail server is pretty neat for people who might not use Mail.app (wacky mutt users!) or are Darwin diehards -- or just command-line curious. Between Fink and apps like this, you can do what you used to have to be a BSD expert to achieve.

But check Mail.app out again if you're using something else now. It's a much better app now than it was in OS X 10.0, when it was a pretty simple tech preview of the Address Book and spellcheck Cocoa textareas. And with Panther, the app seems to only be getting better.

Re:Use smtp.mac.com instead...

[Goo.cc]

I like Mail but it took a huge step backwards when it lost its ability to use standard Unix mailspools/mboxes. I also don't care for the way Mail stores its mail.

okay but..

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, but i'm still left with questions. note these are not snide critisism cause I'm ignorant. I just want to understand.

why cant you just connect to the work mailhost or to comcasts mail host. what has sending your e-mail out directly bought you?

And what does mobility have to do with anything here. that is, cant you see the comcast mailhost from anywhere and access it via an smtp connection that uses a password even if its not on their net?

if not then, mail programs (like mail.app) are happy to let you select the outgoing mail server so again its no big deal to switch from one to the other when at work/home. Am I missing something?

and finally my comapny recently started blocking port 110 connection FROM mailhosts outside the local network. thus you can only get mail sent to you through the companies mailhost. (they did this to force all e-mail to go through a virus sniffer on their host). Would this cause problems for sendmail? yes I realize its outgoing but presumably it also gets info sent back regarding the success of the mail delivery.

Re:okay but..

[good soldier svejk]

okay, but i'm still left with questions. note these are not snide critisism cause I'm ignorant. I just want to understand.

No problem. I aim to please, or at least not be a jerk.

why cant you just connect to the work mailhost or to comcasts mail host.

If I had different computers at work and home that would be fine. But my main computer is a Powerbook.

I can connect to my work SMTP server from home, but it will only relay mail bound for my work domain. We do not allow external relaying (from and external source to an external recipient). When I am at work I can of course send to any recipient I like. Likewise, Comcast only allows access to their SMTP servers from Comcast IP addresses. They do not allow external relaying.

what has sending your e-mail out directly bought you?

Relaying off myself (my loopback address) ensures I can send mail from any physical location to any recipient without reconfiguring anything. Or at least that was true until a few weeks ago, when AOL started bouncing mail from Comcast user addresses.

And what does mobility have to do with anything here. that is, cant you see the comcast mailhost from anywhere and access it via an smtp connection that uses a password even if its not on their net?

No. There are several ways of adding authentication to SMTP services but Comcast does not rely on any of them. You also can't POP your Comcast mail (In New England anyway) from a non-Comcast address. If you have a non-Comcast IP you must use their webmail to send and receive mail.

if not then, mail programs (like mail.app) are happy to let you select the outgoing mail server so again its no big deal to switch from one to the other when at work/home. Am I missing something?

Personally I find it a burden reconfiguring my mail client twice a day. I think everything should work seamlessly with no user intervention and I don't mind doing a little up front work to make it so. This is even more true for our users at work. They would throw fits if we told them they had to reconfigure their client every time they changed locations. This way all I need to do is swap one file and they are set for life (or until Software Update clobbers their .cf anyway). I put it on our OS X image.

and finally my comapny recently started blocking port 110 connection FROM mailhosts outside the local network. thus you can only get mail sent to you through the companies mailhost. (they did this to force all e-mail to go through a virus sniffer on their host). Would this cause problems for sendmail?

No. SMTP and POP (Post Office Protocol) are totally seperate protocols. Sendmail only does SMTP.

yes I realize its outgoing but presumably it also gets info sent back regarding the success of the mail delivery.

You are correct that there is an SMTP "conversation" for each message, but it does not happen on port 110, which is reserved for the POP protocol.

Re:okay but..

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently went on a trip and I used a free AOL trial for connectivity in places I couldn't leech wireless. I could use Comcast's smtp servers from all the wireless access points and AOL.

Re:okay but..

[good soldier svejk]

Comcast is a big compay which has many networks with a variety of policies. That is why I said "at least in New England." I should have been more specific but I didn't want you all to know where I live. This policy actually predates Comcast's aquisition of my provider. Trust me, they won't let me pop or relay from other providers. OTOH, in some parts of the country Comcast has tried to abolish home NATing, IIRC. Here it is no problem. The one thing they did change when they took over is the MAC registration requirement, which they eliminated.

Re:Hairy pussy

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously haven't been to Kansas.

Ack!

[General Sherman]

Please, all you people just starting up sendmail on your mac, please, OH PLEASE set it to only allow incoming connections from localhost or set it to have authorization required?

Don't turn your mac into a spam relay.

Re:Hairy pussy

[Znonymous Coward]

I live in Wichita. All the chicks are shaved.

Failed me

[djupedal]

...this GUI enabler is optimistic at all times, regardless of what is really happenind in the background.

Even tho mail isn't going anywhere, the app smiles and promises that all is well.

Perhaps something else already running on my box is the issue, but when it comes to enabling sendmail, this app will not work 100% of the time.

m4 is there

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, m4 IS included in OS X 10.2 (.6 at least): /usr/bin/m4

Fantastic Little App

[DarthNutz]

This is the most useful app I've seen in a long time. For months I've been trying to enable sendmail on my home server. Within minutes it was up and running thanks to this FREE app. Thank the makers!

Super happy when I heard Pather will have postfix

[csoto]

Oh, and Mailman, too! This is great. Not that AMS hasn't worked well for us (limited users). But more open source solutions is better. And Mailman lets me get rid of our ancient Stalker Internet Mail Server (not that it doesn't work great, it's just the Mac it runs on is ancient and could die any moment)!

This works great with

[vasqzr]

DynDns