Subject: Re: sendmail configuration
To: email@example.com, Greg Hudson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Don Lewis <email@example.com>
Date: 11/02/1995 17:45:30
On Nov 2, 2:16pm, Ask Dr. Stupid wrote:
} Subject: Re: sendmail configuration
} If you spool incoming AND outgoing mail to the mail hubs directly, then
} that makes sense, but even if you're going to be sending mail from
} a machine, you should start sendmail on it.
} It's kind of a pity you can't just do a 'sendmail -send-only' and have
} it just sit there processing the queue as needed, and have it refuse in-
} coming connections (if, as you say, everything gets routed through the
} mail hubs, and all the aliases and translations are set correctly).
} configured correctly, this would permit the client to send mail outward
} and not require it to listen for incoming mail (since even if it were
} to bounce back, the mail hub would properly re-route it).
Yup, though I bit the bullet and I run sendmail -bd on my clients as
well. If some busted mailer out there decides that it just *has* to
send mail to the client (because it ignores MX records), this allows
the client to accept the mail and immediately forward it to the hub.
Otherwise the mail would get stuck in the busted mailer's outgoing
queue until it timed out.
} I can't see a single valid reason not to run sendmail at all. Even if
} you're the only user on a standalone machine, some processes want to send
} you mail if they blow up. Granted, it's configurable, but there's still
} a good chance that running sendmail is a desirable thing.
Well you could run "sendmail -q" from cron.