mail function and sendmail

Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:09 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> The same thing that happens when the local MTA isn't available. The
>>>> function call fails.
>>> Ah, but if a local MTA isn't available, that's *your* fault, not
>>> someone else's.
>>>
>>>> But considering how many ISP's are now blocking port 25 for outgoing
>>>> email, it doesn't make much sense to run your own email server.
>>> Ain't that big a deal. Have the local MTA rigged to deliver to the
>>> remote MTA the same way as whatever the sSMTP or built-in mailer
>>> would do. All the good MTAs can play nicely with smarthosts at least
>>> as well as all good mail clients.
>>
>> If you have a smarthost on the other end which accepts relays for
>> other domains. There aren't many of those out there unless you have a
>> VPS or dedicated server.
>
> If you can't get mail out with an MTA, you can't get mail out with
> sSMTP. And there are transitory circumstances under which you CAN get
> mail out with a real MTA that would fail with sSMTP. That's the whole
> of my point.
>

Not really true. As I indciated, MTA's use port 25 for communications
between systems. Those are now being blocked by more and more ISPs.
However, port 587 is supposed to be used for users to connect to their
MTA and still open. However, if set up properly, port 587 requires
authorization - something a spammer wouldn't have.

So running an MTA on your machine won't help if port 25 outgoing is
blocked. And very few people have access to smarthosts. Those who do
are mainly employees of large companies.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:g60s9m$7cv$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:09 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The same thing that happens when the local MTA isn't available. The
>>>>> function call fails.
>>>> Ah, but if a local MTA isn't available, that's *your* fault, not
>>>> someone else's.
>>>>
>>>>> But considering how many ISP's are now blocking port 25 for outgoing
>>>>> email, it doesn't make much sense to run your own email server.
>>>> Ain't that big a deal. Have the local MTA rigged to deliver to the
>>>> remote MTA the same way as whatever the sSMTP or built-in mailer
>>>> would do. All the good MTAs can play nicely with smarthosts at least
>>>> as well as all good mail clients.
>>>
>>> If you have a smarthost on the other end which accepts relays for
>>> other domains. There aren't many of those out there unless you have a
>>> VPS or dedicated server.
>>
>> If you can't get mail out with an MTA, you can't get mail out with
>> sSMTP. And there are transitory circumstances under which you CAN get
>> mail out with a real MTA that would fail with sSMTP. That's the whole
>> of my point.
>>
>
> Not really true. As I indciated, MTA's use port 25 for communications
> between systems. Those are now being blocked by more and more ISPs.
> However, port 587 is supposed to be used for users to connect to their MTA
> and still open. However, if set up properly, port 587 requires
> authorization - something a spammer wouldn't have.

wow, jerry! kinda, but not really? an explanation would really be amusing
here!

if set up properly, any port (25 inclusive) can be made to require
authorization...but that's not even a direct counter to 'all the good mtas
can play nicely with smarthosts...'. it's not even a side-ways counter. it's
nothing to do with the point.

> So running an MTA on your machine won't help if port 25 outgoing is
> blocked. And very few people have access to smarthosts. Those who do are
> mainly employees of large companies.

you keep using terms like 'very few people' and 'those are now being blocked
by more and more isps'. it begs the question jerry. care to quantify that
with cited materials? that would certainly help you make a case that
'playing nicely' is play that is hard to come by these days.

why do you go soooo far off tangent from what the OP actually asks? usually
it shows you making unsubstantiated claims...and shows your lack of
knowledge in anything not directly php code language specific, i.e. how
email works.

hmmmm...here's a test. tell us, oh knowledgable one, what 'transitory
circumstances' would they be that would allow mail out with a real MTA but
where a binary such as sstmp would fail? i can think of a couple off the top
of my head. if any had come to your mind, i'm sure you wouldn't have strayed
so far from the point, and as readily!

and btw, nice display of christianly love with the response to arn! at least
my 'lying' involves keeping my mouth shut...yours careens out of your pie
hole with the unrelently onslaught of your typing fingers! we'd all much
appreciate you lying in the manner i espouse. :)

keep your yap shut, jer.

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:g60s9m$7cv$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:09 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:02:52 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The same thing that happens when the local MTA isn't available. The
>>>>> function call fails.
>>>> Ah, but if a local MTA isn't available, that's *your* fault, not
>>>> someone else's.
>>>>
>>>>> But considering how many ISP's are now blocking port 25 for outgoing
>>>>> email, it doesn't make much sense to run your own email server.
>>>> Ain't that big a deal. Have the local MTA rigged to deliver to the
>>>> remote MTA the same way as whatever the sSMTP or built-in mailer
>>>> would do. All the good MTAs can play nicely with smarthosts at least
>>>> as well as all good mail clients.
>>>
>>> If you have a smarthost on the other end which accepts relays for
>>> other domains. There aren't many of those out there unless you have a
>>> VPS or dedicated server.
>>
>> If you can't get mail out with an MTA, you can't get mail out with
>> sSMTP. And there are transitory circumstances under which you CAN get
>> mail out with a real MTA that would fail with sSMTP. That's the whole
>> of my point.
>>
>
> Not really true. As I indciated, MTA's use port 25 for communications
> between systems. Those are now being blocked by more and more ISPs.
> However, port 587 is supposed to be used for users to connect to their MTA
> and still open. However, if set up properly, port 587 requires
> authorization - something a spammer wouldn't have.

wow, jerry! kinda, but not really? an explanation would really be amusing
here!

if set up properly, any port (25 inclusive) can be made to require
authorization...but that's not even a direct counter to 'all the good mtas
can play nicely with smarthosts...'. it's not even a side-ways counter. it's
nothing to do with the point.

> So running an MTA on your machine won't help if port 25 outgoing is
> blocked. And very few people have access to smarthosts. Those who do are
> mainly employees of large companies.

you keep using terms like 'very few people' and 'those are now being blocked
by more and more isps'. it begs the question jerry. care to quantify that
with cited materials? that would certainly help you make a case that
'playing nicely' is play that is hard to come by these days.

why do you go soooo far off tangent from what the OP actually asks? usually
it shows you making unsubstantiated claims...and shows your lack of
knowledge in anything not directly php code language specific, i.e. how
email works.

hmmmm...here's a test. tell us, oh knowledgable one, what 'transitory
circumstances' would they be that would allow mail out with a real MTA but
where a binary such as sstmp would fail? i can think of a couple off the top
of my head. if any had come to your mind, i'm sure you wouldn't have strayed
so far from the point, and as readily!

and btw, nice display of christianly love with the response to arn! at least
my 'lying' involves keeping my mouth shut...yours careens out of your pie
hole with the unrelently onslaught of your typing fingers! we'd all much
appreciate you lying in the manner i espouse. :)

keep your yap shut, jer.