fetchmail-users — User questions and discussion

[fetchmail-users] reasonable poll intervals (was: Re: Rotating the log file)

[Uli Z. <ul...@ri...>]

Am 11.07.2006 um 11:37 schrieb Matthias Andree:

> checking new mail every 3 minutes [is] abusive

Oooops!?! How so? I use 30 seconds as poll interval. Admittedly, most  
of the people I know that use fetchmail use something between 60 and  
120 seconds, but personally I don't know anyone who would use an  
interval longer than 120 seconds.

> (if you need real-time delivery, either use IMAP with IDLE or SMTP  
> or UUCP over TCP/IP

As far as I can see, none of these protocols is a functionally  
identical replacement for fetchmail. I don't know IMAP more closely,  
but to update the local mail client with regard to new emails, I  
figure some constant polling must go on, too. Besides, few ISPs  
support IMAP. Hardly any ISP supports SMTP or UUCP, and they don't  
work well with connections that are not always on.

             Bye
                     Uli
________________________________________________________

   Uli Zappe, Solmsstraße 5, D-65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
   http://www.ritual.org
   Fon: +49-700-ULIZAPPE
   Fax: +49-700-ZAPPEFAX
________________________________________________________

Re: [fetchmail-users] [BUG] fetchmail daemon does not resume fetching after a network outage

[Uli Z. <ul...@ri...>]

Am 28.06.2006 um 02:46 schrieb Matthias Andree:

> I don't think I'll be able to handle this before Saturday, perhaps  
> Sunday; but providing patches for you to test should be feasible.

Has anything happened yet?

             Bye
                     Uli
________________________________________________________

   Uli Zappe, Solmsstraße 5, D-65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
   http://www.ritual.org
   Fon: +49-700-ULIZAPPE
   Fax: +49-700-ZAPPEFAX
________________________________________________________

Re: [fetchmail-users] Rotating the log file

[James M. <ji...@so...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthias Andree wrote:
>>   There seems to be no built in mechanism for limiting the size of the log
>> file. It grows without bound. I have tried renaming it but fetchmail does
>> not create a new one and all further logging is lost.
>>   Logrotate looks like a useful tool for managing the log files. Does
>> fetchmail act the same way, stop logging, when logrotate changes the file
>> names?
>>   Or must I stop fetchmail, rename the log file, restart fetchmail?
>>
> For the time being, you will need to restart fetchmail
> unfortunately.
> 
> I've put on my TODO list the suggestion to handle closing/reopening log
> files for the next fetchmail version.
> 
  Okay. Thanks!

- --
jimoe (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (OS/2)

iD8DBQFEs+JkzTcr8Prq0ZMRAoQnAKCU2jqkqCMuBhh7jwzlfU3uNthyngCfTl6A
llTl4pe2aBgrV6ro6//F25A=
=fCx/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [fetchmail-users] Rotating the log file

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

"Rob MacGregor" <rob...@gm...> writes:

>> fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:25:26 BST
>> fetchmail: awakened at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:28:26 BST
>
> However, if you run syslog-ng you could easily weed out the messages
> you don't want.  I've done that on a number of systems, using the
> pattern matching to avoid logging pointless stuff.  Probably easier
> than patching fetchmail, and arguing over what messages should go at
> what verbosity level :)

There's a bug report/patching "war" in the Debian system going on for
many a month... Some users want these sleeping/awakened messages logged,
others don't, so whenever one fix is made to close a bug report, the
other group files a bug report... Looks like a switch is needed for
these particular messages in the long run.

Since I tend to think that uninteresting messages can be filtered out
easily with egrep -v or syslog-ng or whatever and checking new mail
every 3 minutes abusive (if you need real-time delivery, either use IMAP
with IDLE or SMTP or UUCP over TCP/IP, I'll say we keep these for the
nonce.

These particular messages for the 6.3.X series will stay in so that
6.3.X releases are compatible with each other.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: [fetchmail-users] Rotating the log file

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

James Moe <ji...@so...> writes:

> Hello,
>   There seems to be no built in mechanism for limiting the size of the log
> file. It grows without bound. I have tried renaming it but fetchmail does
> not create a new one and all further logging is lost.
>   Logrotate looks like a useful tool for managing the log files. Does
> fetchmail act the same way, stop logging, when logrotate changes the file
> names?
>   Or must I stop fetchmail, rename the log file, restart fetchmail?
>
> fetchmail v6.3.4

For the time being, you will need to restart fetchmail
unfortunately.

I've put on my TODO list the suggestion to handle closing/reopening log
files for the next fetchmail version.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: [fetchmail-users] Rotating the log file

[Rob M. <rob...@gm...>]

[ Please don't CC me on list traffic ]

On 7/10/06, Stephen Allen <fet...@ro...> wrote:
> Rob MacGregor wrote:
> > Have you considered using syslog instead of logfile?
>
> That would be a good idea if you could control more of what gets logged
> there.  At the moment, my fetchmail daemon runs every 180 seconds and
> checks email from half-a-dozen POP3 servers.  Most of it's log is filled
> with:
>
> fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:25:26 BST
> fetchmail: awakened at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:28:26 BST
<---SNIP--->
> However, I *do* want to see messages like:
>
> fetchmail: 1 message for us...@do... at POP3-1 (2353 octets).
> fetchmail: reading message us...@do...@pop.isp.com:1 of 1 (2353
> octets) fetchmail:  flushed
>
> As far as I know at the moment, it's all or nothing.

For what you're after, yes.  I'll admit that I only see log entries
from fetchmail when things go wrong.  Everything else would only be
duplicating what my MTA logs anyway...

However, if you run syslog-ng you could easily weed out the messages
you don't want.  I've done that on a number of systems, using the
pattern matching to avoid logging pointless stuff.  Probably easier
than patching fetchmail, and arguing over what messages should go at
what verbosity level :)

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.

Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: [fetchmail-users] Rotating the log file

[Stephen A. <fet...@ro...>]

Rob MacGregor wrote:
> Have you considered using syslog instead of logfile?

That would be a good idea if you could control more of what gets logged 
there.  At the moment, my fetchmail daemon runs every 180 seconds and 
checks email from half-a-dozen POP3 servers.  Most of it's log is filled 
with:

fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:25:26 BST
fetchmail: awakened at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:28:26 BST
fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:28:51 BST
fetchmail: awakened at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:31:51 BST
fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:32:16 BST
fetchmail: awakened at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:35:16 BST
fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:35:43 BST
fetchmail: awakened at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:38:43 BST
fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:39:09 BST
fetchmail: awakened at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:42:09 BST
fetchmail: sleeping at Mon 10 Jul 2006 20:42:40 BST

However, I *do* want to see messages like:

fetchmail: 1 message for us...@do... at POP3-1 (2353 octets).
fetchmail: reading message us...@do...@pop.isp.com:1 of 1 (2353 
octets) fetchmail:  flushed

As far as I know at the moment, it's all or nothing.

Steve :)

Re: [fetchmail-users] Rotating the log file

[Rob M. <rob...@gm...>]

On 7/10/06, James Moe <ji...@so...> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>   There seems to be no built in mechanism for limiting the size of the log
> file. It grows without bound. I have tried renaming it but fetchmail does
> not create a new one and all further logging is lost.
>   Logrotate looks like a useful tool for managing the log files. Does
> fetchmail act the same way, stop logging, when logrotate changes the file
> names?
>   Or must I stop fetchmail, rename the log file, restart fetchmail?

Have you considered using syslog instead of logfile?

Fetchmail currently only opens the logfile at startup.  To get it to
close the logfile you'd have to restart (or supply a patch).

(Oh, and technically the further logging isn't lost - under *nix it's
legal to open a file and then delete it.  The file isn't removed from
disk until it's closed.  This is useful for temporary files.)

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.

Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche

[fetchmail-users] Rotating the log file

[James M. <ji...@so...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,
  There seems to be no built in mechanism for limiting the size of the log
file. It grows without bound. I have tried renaming it but fetchmail does
not create a new one and all further logging is lost.
  Logrotate looks like a useful tool for managing the log files. Does
fetchmail act the same way, stop logging, when logrotate changes the file
names?
  Or must I stop fetchmail, rename the log file, restart fetchmail?

fetchmail v6.3.4

- --
jimoe (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (OS/2)

iD8DBQFEsqGdzTcr8Prq0ZMRAsAxAKCh5VmdtzD6UkRbi3NanxkqCABHaACePS0Z
Wv8S5NBFMoCWl7Rbhpkti7U=
=/F95
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [fetchmail-users] Running fetchmail as root for all users

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

Stephen Allen <fet...@ro...> writes:

> Thanks Rob, I take note about not running it as root and will fix that
> ASAP.  My questions was mainly aimed at, should I run one instance of
> fetchmail to poll all POP3 accounts for all 8 users, or should I set up
> a seperate instance per-user?  And I thought it might be significant to
> say that the users cannot log in via a shell.

If fetchmail is forwarding via SMTP (the default) or LMTP (note that
file permissions apply when forwarding into a unix-domain LMTP socket),
there is:

- no need to run fetchmail as root, and

- no need that the recipients can log into a shell.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: [fetchmail-users] Running fetchmail as root for all users

[Rob M. <rob...@gm...>]

On 7/6/06, Stephen Allen <fet...@ro...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Rob, I take note about not running it as root and will fix that
> ASAP.  My questions was mainly aimed at, should I run one instance of
> fetchmail to poll all POP3 accounts for all 8 users, or should I set up
> a seperate instance per-user?  And I thought it might be significant to
> say that the users cannot log in via a shell.

Up to you.  I tend to split things by ISP, rather than user.  That way
problems with one ISP don't impact all the others.

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.

Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: [fetchmail-users] Running fetchmail as root for all users

[Stephen A. <fet...@ro...>]

Rob MacGregor wrote:
> There is no need, unless you're passing email directly to a non-SUID
> MDA, to run fetchmail as root.  Indeed, future versions of fetchmail
> will refuse to run as root.  I haven't run fetchmail as root since
> before 6.0 was released and have not had any problems.
> 
> Simply run it as a standard user (say "fetchmail") and have it pass
> email to your MTA.
> 
> In general, running any program with higher privileges than it
> requires is a security risk.

Thanks Rob, I take note about not running it as root and will fix that 
ASAP.  My questions was mainly aimed at, should I run one instance of 
fetchmail to poll all POP3 accounts for all 8 users, or should I set up 
a seperate instance per-user?  And I thought it might be significant to 
say that the users cannot log in via a shell.

Thanks,
Steve :)

Re: [fetchmail-users] Running fetchmail as root for all users

[Rob M. <rob...@gm...>]

On 7/6/06, Stephen Allen <fet...@ro...> wrote:
> The subject may be a little misleading... in my scenario we have 10 ISP
> POP3 accounts that map to 8 local users.  The way I set it up a few
> years ago was fetchmail running as root and collecting mail for all POP3
> accounts.  I've since discovered that fetchmail is normally run on a
> per-user basis.
>
> Given that the users never log in to a shell, what is the best
> configuration in my case?  Are there pros/cons of doing it either way?

There is no need, unless you're passing email directly to a non-SUID
MDA, to run fetchmail as root.  Indeed, future versions of fetchmail
will refuse to run as root.  I haven't run fetchmail as root since
before 6.0 was released and have not had any problems.

Simply run it as a standard user (say "fetchmail") and have it pass
email to your MTA.

In general, running any program with higher privileges than it
requires is a security risk.

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.

Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche

[fetchmail-users] Running fetchmail as root for all users

[Stephen A. <fet...@ro...>]

The subject may be a little misleading... in my scenario we have 10 ISP 
POP3 accounts that map to 8 local users.  The way I set it up a few 
years ago was fetchmail running as root and collecting mail for all POP3 
accounts.  I've since discovered that fetchmail is normally run on a 
per-user basis.

Given that the users never log in to a shell, what is the best 
configuration in my case?  Are there pros/cons of doing it either way?

Many thanks,
Steve :)

Re: [fetchmail-users] fetchmail: SMTP error: 552 Message size exceeds fixed limit

[Jason W. <jas...@in...>]

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 02:14:57AM +0100, Stephen Allen wrote:
> message_size_limit = 10240000
> 
> Would I be right in thinking it's the "message_size_limit" that is responsible 
> for refusing the message?  If so, how big is the message that fetchmail 
> reported (16681007 octets)?  How does that compare with bytes?
"Octet" is another word for "byte". You have a message limit of 10 million
bytes, but Fetchmail is trying to deliver a message with more than 16 million
bytes.

If you want this mail to be delivered you'll have to increase the Postfix
message size limit by adjusting the value of the message_size_limit variable
in main.cf.

[fetchmail-users] fetchmail: SMTP error: 552 Message size exceeds fixed limit

[Stephen A. <fet...@ro...>]

Hello all... (my first post to this list).  I've just noticed this error
in my fetchmail log:

fetchmail: reading message [masked]:1 of 1 (
16681007 octets) fetchmail: SMTP error: 552 Message size exceeds fixed limit
fetchmail:  flushed

I found a previous problem like this, which suggested the local SMTP
service was refusing to receive it.  I use Postfix, so I did a grep on
the output of postconf, and this is what I get:

[root@samba ~]# postconf -d | grep size
berkeley_db_create_buffer_size = 16777216
berkeley_db_read_buffer_size = 131072
body_checks_size_limit = 51200
bounce_size_limit = 50000
header_size_limit = 102400
mailbox_size_limit = 51200000
message_size_limit = 10240000

Would I be right in thinking it's the "message_size_limit" that is
responsible for refusing the message?  If so, how big is the message
that fetchmail reported (16681007 octets)?  How does that compare with
bytes?

Many thanks,
Steve :)

[fetchmail-users] fetchmail: SMTP error: 552 Message size exceeds fixed limit

[Stephen A. <sd...@ro...>]

Hello all... (my first post to this list).  I've just noticed this error 
in my fetchmail log:

fetchmail: reading message [masked]:1 of 1 (
16681007 octets) fetchmail: SMTP error: 552 Message size exceeds fixed limit
fetchmail:  flushed

I found a previous problem like this, which suggested the local SMTP 
service was refusing to receive it.  I use Postfix, so I did a grep on 
the output of postconf, and this is what I get:

[root@samba ~]# postconf -d | grep size
berkeley_db_create_buffer_size = 16777216
berkeley_db_read_buffer_size = 131072
body_checks_size_limit = 51200
bounce_size_limit = 50000
header_size_limit = 102400
mailbox_size_limit = 51200000
message_size_limit = 10240000

Would I be right in thinking it's the "message_size_limit" that is 
responsible for refusing the message?  If so, how big is the message 
that fetchmail reported (16681007 octets)?  How does that compare with 
bytes?

Many thanks,
Steve :)

Re: [fetchmail-users] What is a "local issuer certificate"?

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

Paul Elliott <pel...@io...> writes:

> I am not an expert on ssl so this does not really answer my
> question.

You need the root certificate that this...

>
> I got one certificate from the imap server at mail.io.com
> by doing the following:
>
> openssl s_client -connect mail.io.com:993 -showcerts

...certificate was signed with.

(few minutes later)

The necessary root certificate can be downloaded here:
<http://www.geotrust.com/resources/root_certificates/index.asp>

Under Root 4, download "Download - Equifax Secure eBusiness CA-1
(Base-64 encoded X.509)" and save it to a file. Then rename the
downloaded *.cer file so it has a .pem ending (it's in PEM format, but
it needs a .pem suffix for c_rehash to recognize it) and
move it into your .ssl/certs, then run c_rehash ~/.ssl/certs.

You already have "sslcertpath /home/pelliott/.ssl/certs", so that part
is covered. After the installation of that certificate, you can remove
the sslfingerprint option.

> and the io.pem was supposed to be signed by equifax so I should
> have the certificate for equifax that signed io.pem.

Yet you don't. Equifax issued more than one certificate.

> My .fetchmailrc looks like (with password XXXXed):
>
> # Configuration created Mon Jun 19 10:26:45 2006 by fetchmailconf 1.52 $Revision: 4636 $
> set postmaster "pelliott"
> set bouncemail
> set no spambounce
> set properties ""
> poll mail.io.com with proto IMAP
>        user 'pelliott' there with password 'XXXXXXX' is 'pelliott' here sslcertpath /home/pelliott/.ssl/certs sslfingerprint "5D:1F:EF:5B:2C:C6:72:07:D4:18:D1:D3:15:8F:4F:1B"
> #sslcertck
>
> I am still getting the error message.

Which means your fetchmail version is older than 6.3.4.
Please update.

> My question was does "local issuer certificate" refer to?

The root certificate.

> The certificate I got from the imap server at mail.io.com or does it
> refer to a self signed certificate describing my fetchmail client?

Neither.

> How do I create/get one in any case?

See above.

> The fetchmail documentation describes the --sslcert and --sslkey
> parameters and how they should point to certifications and keys.

No.

> But this stuff is going to be used by a lot of ignorant people
> like me, it does not tell how to get and/or create such keys.
> I can't seem to figure it out.

Your ISP should have provided the necessary instructions. Please ask
them to provide instructions and the necessary root certificate.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: [fetchmail-users] What is a "local issuer certificate"?

[Paul E. <pel...@io...>]

On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 11:38:46AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Paul Elliott <pel...@io...> writes:
> 
> > When I run fetchmail to get mail from my IMAP server
> > I get the following messages:
> >
> > fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: unable to get local issuer certificate
> > fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: certificate not trusted
> > fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: unable to verify the first certificate
> >
> >
> > My question is: what is a "local issuer certificate"?
> >
> > Is it the public key associated with my IMAP server?
> > Or is it the public key associated with my local fetchmail
> > client?
> >
> > In any case how do I create and/or get one to make the error go
> > away?
> 
> That depends. Usually the fix to is make sure that fetchmail can find
> the root certificate. Some self-signed certificates are provided without
> the signing root certificate; ask the operator of the server.
> 
> Older fetchmail versions did not set the certificate authorities' path
> properly, updating to 6.3.4 should then fix that.
> 
> As a workaround, run fetchmail with -v to see the MD5 fingerprint, call
> the server's operator to verify the fingerprint, and use the
> --sslfingerprint option. This, too, needs a recent fetchmail version to
> work properly.
> 


I am not an expert on ssl so this does not really answer my
question.

I got one certificate from the imap server at mail.io.com
by doing the following:

openssl s_client -connect mail.io.com:993 -showcerts

I then grabbed everything between the
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
-----END CERTIFICATE-----
inclusive and put it in io.pem in the
/home/pelliott/.ssl/certs directory

this directory also contains

ls .ssl/certs
1e49180d.0  843b6c51.0         aae0b7a3.0  eng1.pem    io.pem~
2edf7016.0  878cf4c6.0         argena.pem  eng2.pem    thawteCb.pem
56e607f4.0  Equifax-root1.pem  argeng.pem  eng3.pem    thawteCp.pem
594f1775.0  ICP-Brasil.pem     c33a80d4.0  eng4.pem    vsign1.pem
6adf0799.0  RegTP-5R.pem       cdd7aee7.0  eng5.pem    vsign3.pem
6f5d9899.0  RegTP-6R.pem       d4e39186.0  expired     vsignss.pem
7651b327.0  a3c60019.0         ddc328ff.0  f73e89fd.0  wellsfgo.pem
7a9820c1.0  aad3d04d.0         demo        io.pem

I did a "c_rehash /home/pelliott/.ssl/certs"


and the io.pem was supposed to be signed by equifax so I should
have the certificate for equifax that signed io.pem.

My .fetchmailrc looks like (with password XXXXed):

# Configuration created Mon Jun 19 10:26:45 2006 by fetchmailconf 1.52 $Revision: 4636 $
set postmaster "pelliott"
set bouncemail
set no spambounce
set properties ""
poll mail.io.com with proto IMAP
       user 'pelliott' there with password 'XXXXXXX' is 'pelliott' here sslcertpath /home/pelliott/.ssl/certs sslfingerprint "5D:1F:EF:5B:2C:C6:72:07:D4:18:D1:D3:15:8F:4F:1B"
#sslcertck

I am still getting the error message.

My question was does "local issuer certificate" refer to? The
certificate I got from the imap server at mail.io.com or
does it refer to a self signed certificate describing
my fetchmail client? How do I create/get one in any case?

The fetchmail documentation describes the --sslcert and --sslkey
parameters and how they should point to certifications and keys.

But this stuff is going to be used by a lot of ignorant people
like me, it does not tell how to get and/or create such keys.
I can't seem to figure it out.

-- 
Paul Elliott                       1(512)837-1096
pel...@io...                    PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.io.com/~pelliott/pme/   Austin TX 78758-3117

Re: [fetchmail-users] What is a "local issuer certificate"?

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

Paul Elliott <pel...@io...> writes:

> When I run fetchmail to get mail from my IMAP server
> I get the following messages:
>
> fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: unable to get local issuer certificate
> fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: certificate not trusted
> fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: unable to verify the first certificate
>
>
> My question is: what is a "local issuer certificate"?
>
> Is it the public key associated with my IMAP server?
> Or is it the public key associated with my local fetchmail
> client?
>
> In any case how do I create and/or get one to make the error go
> away?

That depends. Usually the fix to is make sure that fetchmail can find
the root certificate. Some self-signed certificates are provided without
the signing root certificate; ask the operator of the server.

Older fetchmail versions did not set the certificate authorities' path
properly, updating to 6.3.4 should then fix that.

As a workaround, run fetchmail with -v to see the MD5 fingerprint, call
the server's operator to verify the fingerprint, and use the
--sslfingerprint option. This, too, needs a recent fetchmail version to
work properly.

-- 
Matthias Andree

[fetchmail-users] What is a "local issuer certificate"?

[Paul E. <pel...@io...>]

When I run fetchmail to get mail from my IMAP server
I get the following messages:

fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: unable to get local issuer certificate
fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: certificate not trusted
fetchmail: Server certificate verification error: unable to verify the first certificate


My question is: what is a "local issuer certificate"?

Is it the public key associated with my IMAP server?
Or is it the public key associated with my local fetchmail
client?

In any case how do I create and/or get one to make the error go
away?


Thank You.

-- 
Paul Elliott                       1(512)837-1096
pel...@io...                    PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.io.com/~pelliott/pme/   Austin TX 78758-3117

Re: [fetchmail-users] Multi-drop problems

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

Andrew Longland-Meech <an...@lo...> writes:

> Thank you so much. It works! I didn't understand the bit in the manual
> about 'aka', but having now re-read it, it sort of makes sense.

BTW, any suggestion how it should be worded instead, to make it more understandable?

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: [fetchmail-users] Multi-drop problems

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Andrew Longland-Meech wrote:

> I only used keep and fetchall together so that I'd always got some
> fetchable messages on the server whilst I was trying to get this to
> work. Do I still need 'uidl' if I don't use 'keep'?

At least it wouldn't hurt.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: [fetchmail-users] Multi-drop problems

[Andrew Longland-M. <an...@lo...>]

On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 11:07 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Andrew Longland-Meech <an...@lo...> writes:
> 
> > Hello list members,
> >
> > I hope someone can help me - I can't be the only person to have ever run
> > into this problem. I've read the FAQ, but that doesn't seem to describe
> > my situation and I've tried everything I can think of.
> >
> > Here's my setup:
> >
> > fetchmail version: 6.3.4
> > Kernel:	2.6.16-1.2080.13.rdt.rhfc5.ccrma
> > ISP: Freenetname.co.uk
> >
> > My ISP provides forwarding from my own domain, and each and every email
> > I receive has a proper Envelope-to; header.
> >
> > I want to have mail for (mypartner)@(mydomain).me.uk delivered to
> > localuser (mypartner) and everything else delivered to localuser (me).
> >
> > Here's my .fetchmailrc file:
> >
> > set postmaster "(me)"
> > set bouncemail
> > set no spambounce
> > set properties ""
> > #set daemon 900
> > poll mail.freenetname.co.uk with proto POP3 envelope "Envelope-to"
> >         user "(username)@freenetname.co.uk" with password "(*******)"
> >                 to      "(mypartner)@(mydomain).me.uk"="(mypartner)"
> >                         "(username)@freenetname.co.uk"="(me)"
> >                         "(myname)@(mydomain).me.uk"="(me)"
> >                 here
> >         options keep fetchall
> >
> > Now, I think this is setup correctly, following the example in the man
> > page for a multi-drop setup, and indeed fetchmail seems to be using the
> > Envelope-to address according to the output of 'fetchmail -v -v' but it
> > simply isn't doing what it's supposed to and matching the server names
> > to the local names! Everything still gets delivered to (me) and contains
> > a header of the form -
> >
> > X-Fetchmail-Warning: recipient address (Envelope-to address) didn't
> > match any local name
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions?
> 
> Well, fetchmail doesn't support full addresses in user mappings yet,
> thus you'll need to rewrite your configuration a bit, hoping that
> (mypartner) is different from (username) and that
> (mypartner) is also different from (myname).
> 
> fetchmail doesn't seem to recognize the recipient addresses either since
> the MX servers for these are most likely not the same as
> mail.freenetname.co.uk.
> 
> Please add between the poll and user lines these three:
> 
> poll mail.freenetname.co.uk
>        aka "(mydomain).me.uk"
>        aka "freenetname.co.uk"
>        proto POP3
>        options UIDL
>        envelope "Envelope-To"
> user "(username)@freenetname.co.uk" 
>        password "(*******)"
>   is   "(mypartner)"="(mypartner)"
>        "(username)"="(me)"
>        "(myname)"="(me)"
>   here
> options keep
> 
> Remarks:
> 1. fetchall and keep together is usually wrong
> 2. UIDL is needed to make "keep" setups reliable
> 
Matthias,

Thank you so much. It works! I didn't understand the bit in the manual
about 'aka', but having now re-read it, it sort of makes sense.

I only used keep and fetchall together so that I'd always got some
fetchable messages on the server whilst I was trying to get this to
work. Do I still need 'uidl' if I don't use 'keep'?

Thanks again.

Andrew

Re: [fetchmail-users] Multi-drop problems

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

Andrew Longland-Meech <an...@lo...> writes:

> Hello list members,
>
> I hope someone can help me - I can't be the only person to have ever run
> into this problem. I've read the FAQ, but that doesn't seem to describe
> my situation and I've tried everything I can think of.
>
> Here's my setup:
>
> fetchmail version: 6.3.4
> Kernel:	2.6.16-1.2080.13.rdt.rhfc5.ccrma
> ISP: Freenetname.co.uk
>
> My ISP provides forwarding from my own domain, and each and every email
> I receive has a proper Envelope-to; header.
>
> I want to have mail for (mypartner)@(mydomain).me.uk delivered to
> localuser (mypartner) and everything else delivered to localuser (me).
>
> Here's my .fetchmailrc file:
>
> set postmaster "(me)"
> set bouncemail
> set no spambounce
> set properties ""
> #set daemon 900
> poll mail.freenetname.co.uk with proto POP3 envelope "Envelope-to"
>         user "(username)@freenetname.co.uk" with password "(*******)"
>                 to      "(mypartner)@(mydomain).me.uk"="(mypartner)"
>                         "(username)@freenetname.co.uk"="(me)"
>                         "(myname)@(mydomain).me.uk"="(me)"
>                 here
>         options keep fetchall
>
> Now, I think this is setup correctly, following the example in the man
> page for a multi-drop setup, and indeed fetchmail seems to be using the
> Envelope-to address according to the output of 'fetchmail -v -v' but it
> simply isn't doing what it's supposed to and matching the server names
> to the local names! Everything still gets delivered to (me) and contains
> a header of the form -
>
> X-Fetchmail-Warning: recipient address (Envelope-to address) didn't
> match any local name
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions?

Well, fetchmail doesn't support full addresses in user mappings yet,
thus you'll need to rewrite your configuration a bit, hoping that
(mypartner) is different from (username) and that
(mypartner) is also different from (myname).

fetchmail doesn't seem to recognize the recipient addresses either since
the MX servers for these are most likely not the same as
mail.freenetname.co.uk.

Please add between the poll and user lines these three:

poll mail.freenetname.co.uk
       aka "(mydomain).me.uk"
       aka "freenetname.co.uk"
       proto POP3
       options UIDL
       envelope "Envelope-To"
user "(username)@freenetname.co.uk" 
       password "(*******)"
  is   "(mypartner)"="(mypartner)"
       "(username)"="(me)"
       "(myname)"="(me)"
  here
options keep

Remarks:
1. fetchall and keep together is usually wrong
2. UIDL is needed to make "keep" setups reliable

-- 
Matthias Andree