Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Sendmail and header truncation in 10.2 UNIX
I have been working on upgrading my mailserver from 10.1.5 to 10.2 and have run into an annoying problem. I followed the sendmail article by Chris Stone of MacDevCenter for enbling sendmail in 10.1.5. Apple has fixed the mail services startup script and the ownership of the clientmqueue directory; so these steps are no longer necessary. However, all received messages have the "F" in the From header chopped off, corrupting the entire INBOX after that point. One more strange point - I have procmail process certain messages before things land in my INBOX (e.g., mailing list msgs are filed in alternate mailboxes); these messages don't seem to be corrupted; however, turning off procmail completely doesn't solve the INBOX problem.

I used procmail to hack a workaround until I can figure out what is going on. After all my other rules process, I send the messages destined for the INBOX through a sed filter which changes the "rom" in the first header line back to "From". Here is the recipe I used at the end of ~/.procmailrc:
# Fix truncated "From" header
| sed '1 s/^rom/From/'
This sed function takes just line 1 (the From header is always the first line) and converts any "rom" string at the beginning of the line to "From".

[Editor's note: I don't run my own sendmail server, so I can't vouch for either the problem or the fix...]
  • Currently 0.00 / 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  (0 votes cast)

Sendmail and header truncation in 10.2 | 4 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'Sendmail and header truncation in 10.2' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Apple should really fix this
Authored by: shen on Aug 28, '02 01:17:53PM

I've gone to Apple's Mac OS X feedback page with this one, and I hope many others will, too. They should really have provided a safe and sane way, for example, a checkbox in the Sharing prefs pane, to turn sendmail on and off. It is ridiculous to include this software without providing a reasonable way to use it, and it would be even more ridiculous not to include sendmail with the system at all. Yes, it is Mac OS, but it is also Unix! A lot of Unix and Linux people are using Mac OS X now and it makes no sense to ship what amounts to a broken Unix distribution. It is unreasonable to have to hack netinfo and rebuild to get the *%@# thing working. Never had such problems with other Unix or Linux distros.

[ Reply to This | # ]
They did-it's called OS X Server
Authored by: Anonymous on Aug 28, '02 01:36:50PM

That's why you pay a premium for OS X server. Nice GUI tools to control those nasssty text files, yes preciousss. I mean really, X client CAN be used as a server, but that's not its target market. It's a client. How many soccer moms are going to want to run sendmail? Personally, I think having the checkbox there in client would be a disaster. You'd have morons the world 'round checking the box and setting up stupid things like open relays without a clue as to what they were doing-just like all the DeadRat admins with default wide open boxes. Yes, you can still have morons doing this in X Server, but the higher cost of entry will go a long ways towards thinning the herd. As far as client checkboxes go, web and file sharing make sense, ssh is borderline but appreciated by power users, ftp is nuts but some folks insist on it. But sendmail? A solution in search of a problem.

[ Reply to This | # ]
They did-it's called OS X Server
Authored by: jaydisc on Aug 28, '02 08:59:51PM

Last time I checked (10.1.5), there is no GUI in OS X server for sendmail... the GUI is for Apple's own AppleMailServer... sendmail config is still manual. Might have change in 10.2, but doubt it.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Authored by: Anonymous on Aug 28, '02 01:22:23PM
This is a known bug with procmail 3.2.2, interesting that you see the same behavior with procmail disabled. I've heard rumor of a patch to procmail but haven't seen it yet. Haven't looked too hard as the workaround is pretty easy...

[ Reply to This | # ]