mutt smtp/pop

[Dale]

I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still doesn't I
get a reply mail saying so

I am now using

Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) 64-bit

and

Mutt 1.5.23-3 which came installed as I saw in the package manager

I copied /etc/Muttrc to ~/.muttrc

and like before added

set realname="Dale"
set from="***@dalekelly.org"

set smtp_url="smtp://***@[e-mail]:25"

set smtp_pass="password"

set pop_host="pop://***@[e-mail]:110"

set pop_pass="password"

I get the following messages
Connecting to smtpout.secureserver.net...
Could not connect to smtpout.secureserver.net (Interrupted system call).

pop works

I noticed ESMTP support declaration in the package manager description,
could there be a conflict?

[j***@j.org]

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email,

mutt devels don't like to waste much effort with smtp support. In
the old times they even had no smtp inside mutt and they forced the
users to use an external smtp client, to be closer to the unix
philosophy.

If you cannot use mutt to send the mail directly directly you can
use some other standalone smtp client.

In muttrc:
set sendmail=/usr/bin/external_smtp_client

and use some external program like
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-net-smtp-tls/

Is the SMTP server microsoft exchange? For exchange msmtp with some extra
compile-time options can handle it.

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/msmtp-ntlm

[Jorgen Grahn]

Post by j***@j.org

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email,

(Not sure what this means -- ISPs have different ways to mess up mail
-- but I assume this one at least has a server which you can relay
outgoing mail through.)

Post by j***@j.org
mutt devels don't like to waste much effort with smtp support. In
the old times they even had no smtp inside mutt and they forced the
users to use an external smtp client, to be closer to the unix
philosophy.
If you cannot use mutt to send the mail directly directly you can
use some other standalone smtp client.
set sendmail=/usr/bin/external_smtp_client
and use some external program like
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-net-smtp-tls/

Or just let $sendmail default to "/usr/sbin/sendmail" and install
exim, postfix, sendmail or some other standard, full-blown MTA.

They can all be configured to relay mail via a specified server.

Exim is, I believe, the default in Ubuntu. Postfix is the one I use
myself.

Post by j***@j.org
Is the SMTP server microsoft exchange? For exchange msmtp with some extra
compile-time options can handle it.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/msmtp-ntlm

/Jorgen

[j***@j.org]

Post by Jorgen Grahn
Or just let $sendmail default to "/usr/sbin/sendmail" and install
exim, postfix, sendmail or some other standard, full-blown MTA.
They can all be configured to relay mail via a specified server.
Exim is, I believe, the default in Ubuntu. Postfix is the one I use
myself.

I just suggested mssmtp/ssmtp/esmtp because they can be configured
with a 10 lines file in $HOME, much quicker than can be done for
exim/postfix by somebody who is not used to configuring mailservers.

[Jorgen Grahn]

Post by j***@j.org

Post by Jorgen Grahn
Or just let $sendmail default to "/usr/sbin/sendmail" and install
exim, postfix, sendmail or some other standard, full-blown MTA.
They can all be configured to relay mail via a specified server.
Exim is, I believe, the default in Ubuntu. Postfix is the one I use
myself.

I just suggested mssmtp/ssmtp/esmtp because they can be configured
with a 10 lines file in $HOME, much quicker than can be done for
exim/postfix by somebody who is not used to configuring mailservers.

My postfix config is of comparable size ... but yes, a full MTA can do
so many things, so you also have to find out what /not/ to touch.

One reason I have for keeping a full MTA is robustness. I don't ever
want to lose mail just because the relay host cannot be reached, or
temporarily doesn't accept mail. Postfix will retry for a couple of
days, and eventually send you a mail telling you it gave up; will
mssmtp/ssmtp/esmtp do that, too?

/Jorgen

[Helmut Springer]

Post by j***@j.org
mutt devels don't like to waste much effort with smtp support.

Well, what are you missing in SMTP support?

Post by j***@j.org
If you cannot use mutt to send the mail directly directly you can
use some other standalone smtp client.

That MTA would need to be configured with the same, here lacking,
information to deliver to the ISP's mail server...

[j***@j.org]

Post by Helmut Springer

Post by j***@j.org
mutt devels don't like to waste much effort with smtp support.

Well, what are you missing in SMTP support?

Although this is unrelated to the OP's problem, mutt lacks the ability
to talk to the SMTP of a MS Exchange server. As far as I know mutt
doesn't do that and you need to use an external program (msmtp).

But I'm fine with that. I understand that dealing with MS Exchange
shit would complicate the mutt code and possibly add more dependencies.
Let's keep mutt simple and do one thing well.

[Helmut Springer]

Post by j***@j.org

Post by Helmut Springer
Well, what are you missing in SMTP support?

Although this is unrelated to the OP's problem, mutt lacks the
ability to talk to the SMTP of a MS Exchange server.

Not that I'm aware of, and I used that setup at work for years.
Which particular problem do your experience?

Post by j***@j.org
As far as I know mutt doesn't do that and you need to use an
external program (msmtp).

msmtp is a "lightweight" MTA, nothing Exchange specific from all I
known. When mutt did not have SMTP support msmtp was a possible
choice for a simple "submit only" MTA if one didn't want to install
or configure a full blown MTA like exim, sendmail or postfix.

Post by j***@j.org
I understand that dealing with MS Exchange shit would complicate
the mutt code and possibly add more dependencies.

What Exchange specifics for SMTP delivery would that be?

[Helmut Springer]

Post by j***@j.org

Post by Helmut Springer
Well, what are you missing in SMTP support?

Although this is unrelated to the OP's problem, mutt lacks the
ability to talk to the SMTP of a MS Exchange server.

Not that I'm aware of, and I used that setup at work for years.
Which particular problem do you experience?

Post by j***@j.org
As far as I know mutt doesn't do that and you need to use an
external program (msmtp).

msmtp is a "lightweight" MTA, nothing Exchange specific from all I
know. When mutt had no integrated SMTP support msmtp was a possible
choice for a simple "submit only" MTA if one didn't want to install
or configure a full blown MTA like exim, sendmail or postfix.

Post by j***@j.org
I understand that dealing with MS Exchange shit would complicate
the mutt code and possibly add more dependencies.

What Exchange specifics for SMTP delivery would that be?

[j***@j.org]

Post by Helmut Springer

Post by j***@j.org
Although this is unrelated to the OP's problem, mutt lacks the
ability to talk to the SMTP of a MS Exchange server.

Not that I'm aware of, and I used that setup at work for years.
Which particular problem do you experience?

I had that problem 4 years ago, when I was in an organization that
provided no alternative to the MS Exchange SMTP. Where I am right now
they also have MS Exchange (it's very hard to find a company that
haven't been assimilated), but they are sensible enough to give linux
users an alternative linux server to send email.

Right now I don't remember much of that traumatic experience. What
I remember is that after a lot of trials changing muttrc, I was able
to set up msmtp much more easily than muttrc (with which I never
suceeded in making it talk to the exchange SMTP).

I am no expert in MS Exchange, but my guess is that the amount of pain
it can inflict varies greatly with the version of the Exchange server,
and the configuration options the IT department is applying.

[RS Wood]

Post by j***@j.org

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email,

mutt devels don't like to waste much effort with smtp support. In
the old times they even had no smtp inside mutt and they forced the
users to use an external smtp client, to be closer to the unix
philosophy.
If you cannot use mutt to send the mail directly directly you can
use some other standalone smtp client.
set sendmail=/usr/bin/external_smtp_client
and use some external program like
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/perl-net-smtp-tls/

Yes, I have used msmtp to handle my mail-sending for over ten years, and
with great success. My ISP is fastmail, and they're pretty strict about SSL
and TLS and such, and msmtp has been able to handle it easily. It's also
available in every distro I've used recently: ubuntu variants and debian,
freebsd and pcbsd, suse, mandriva, and some others. It's something like a
500kb program that does one thing only and does it well.

For what it's worth, I once wrote a beginner's guide to Mutt that seems like
a good match for the kind of things you are grappling with. If you're
interested it's in PDF and HTML versions here:

http://therandymon.com/index.php?/archives/198-Woodnotes-Guide-to-the-Mutt-Email-Client.html

[Helmut Springer]

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to
work except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still
doesn't I get a reply mail saying so

What kind of SMTP TLS do they offer?
That does SMTP on port 25/tcp and then might use STARTTLS.


If your ISP offers SMTPS on port 465/tcp the URL will be

set smtp_url="smtps://***@[e-mail]"

[Ian Zimmerman]

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still doesn't
I get a reply mail saying so

Just as in the mutt-users mailing list, you'll have to define "direct
email".

[RS Wood]

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still doesn't
I get a reply mail saying so

Just as in the mutt-users mailing list, you'll have to define "direct
email".

I assume that means IMAP, where you manipulate the mail directly on the
server instead of offloading it to your local box.

[Jorgen Grahn]

Post by RS Wood

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still doesn't
I get a reply mail saying so

Just as in the mutt-users mailing list, you'll have to define "direct
email".

I assume that means IMAP, where you manipulate the mail directly on the
server instead of offloading it to your local box.

I assumed it meant "no relay", i.e. if you want to send mail to
***@example.org, you do a DNS lookup for example.com and try to
deliver to one of its mail servers.

So yes, a definition is obviously needed.

/Jorgen

[Grant Edwards]

Post by Jorgen Grahn

Post by RS Wood

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still doesn't
I get a reply mail saying so

Just as in the mutt-users mailing list, you'll have to define "direct
email".

I assume that means IMAP, where you manipulate the mail directly on the
server instead of offloading it to your local box.

I assumed it meant "no relay", i.e. if you want to send mail to
deliver to one of its mail servers.

That's what I assumed, but how you did that without using SMTP was
baffling.

[Ian Zimmerman]

Post by Grant Edwards

Post by Jorgen Grahn

Post by RS Wood

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still doesn't
I get a reply mail saying so

Just as in the mutt-users mailing list, you'll have to define "direct
email".

I assume that means IMAP, where you manipulate the mail directly on the
server instead of offloading it to your local box.

I assumed it meant "no relay", i.e. if you want to send mail to
deliver to one of its mail servers.

That's what I assumed, but how you did that without using SMTP was
baffling.

Looking at the context, I guess "direct" means "unencrypted". But still
just guessing.

[Grant Edwards]

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Grant Edwards

Post by Jorgen Grahn

Post by RS Wood

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Dale
I used to use Mutt on Ubuntu from the repository and got it to work
except for smtp TLS, my ISP doesn't allow direct email, still doesn't
I get a reply mail saying so

Just as in the mutt-users mailing list, you'll have to define "direct
email".

I assume that means IMAP, where you manipulate the mail directly on the
server instead of offloading it to your local box.

I assumed it meant "no relay", i.e. if you want to send mail to
deliver to one of its mail servers.

That's what I assumed, but how you did that without using SMTP was
baffling.

Looking at the context, I guess "direct" means "unencrypted". But still
just guessing.

He started an identical thread on the mutt mailing list, and in that

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Grant Edwards
How do you "directly send" without using SMTP?

with the default sending mechanism that came with it before I
configured SMTP variables

Which one presumes means using a command-line "sendmail" utility
supplied by an MTA that came with his distro.

In my mind, that's the most _indirect_ method: (pass message to
sendmail command line utility which puts it into a queue from which it
is is later read by a daemon and then sent daemon to his ISP's
outbound mail server).

The more direct method is to have mutt send the message "directly" to
the ISP's outbound mail server -- bypassing the local sendmail
utility, the local mail queue, and the local MTA daemon.

The _most_ direct method would be to have mutt look up the MX record
for the recipient address(es) and send the message to the
_recipient's_ mail server. But that is so likely to be rejected by
anti-spam measures that's probably pointless to even attempt
implementation of such a feature in mutt.

[Helmut Springer]

Post by Grant Edwards
He started an identical thread on the mutt mailing list, and in that

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Grant Edwards
How do you "directly send" without using SMTP?

with the default sending mechanism that came with it before I
configured SMTP variables

Which one presumes means using a command-line "sendmail" utility
supplied by an MTA that came with his distro.

An ISP thinks in nodes and networks, not in MUAs.

That is "direct" as in the MTA of his system will directly deliver
to the recipient's MX. That is also the traditional out of the box
setup for an internet node.

The required "indirect" sending is his system sending to his ISP's
mailserver, probably with authentication. Can be achieved by either
configuring his host's MTA accordingly or by having mutt deliver to
said ISP's mailserver via SMTP. Given user based authentication the
latter is probably better to avoid clear text passwords in the MTA
config.

[Grant Edwards]

Post by Helmut Springer

Post by Grant Edwards
He started an identical thread on the mutt mailing list, and in that

Post by Ian Zimmerman

Post by Grant Edwards
How do you "directly send" without using SMTP?

with the default sending mechanism that came with it before I
configured SMTP variables

Which one presumes means using a command-line "sendmail" utility
supplied by an MTA that came with his distro.

An ISP thinks in nodes and networks, not in MUAs.

Nobody said it did.

Post by Helmut Springer
That is "direct" as in the MTA of his system will directly deliver
to the recipient's MX.

No, that's not what he was talking about happening. When he said
"direct" he meant it went from Mutt to his local MTA (via a
command-line 'sendmail' utility) and then to his ISP's mail server and
finally to the recipient.

When he said "using SMTP" he meant the mesage went from Mutt to his
ISP's SMTP server then to the recipient.

Post by Helmut Springer
That is also the traditional out of the box setup for an internet
node.

However, that's not the way most home Linux users are set up.

Post by Helmut Springer
The required "indirect" sending is his system sending to his ISP's
mailserver, probably with authentication. Can be achieved by either
configuring his host's MTA accordingly or by having mutt deliver to
said ISP's mailserver via SMTP. Given user based authentication the
latter is probably better to avoid clear text passwords in the MTA
config.

At no point in the thread was he talking about sending mail directing
from either Mutt or his MTA to the recipient's MX server. The former
(Mutt -> recipient's MX server) is what _I_ would call "direct". But
the question was what the OP meant by "direct" vs. "using SMTP"

[Helmut Springer]

Post by Grant Edwards
No, that's not what he was talking about happening. When he said
"direct" he meant it went from Mutt to his local MTA (via a
command-line 'sendmail' utility) and then to his ISP's mail server
and finally to the recipient.

That would have been the same as the msmtp setup people try to make
him use, and it would have required his MTA to be configured
accordingly. And if that worked why would he have to change
anything in the first place?

All a mood point since the OP seems to have abandoned his thread
anyway,

[Grant Edwards]

Post by Helmut Springer

Post by Grant Edwards
No, that's not what he was talking about happening. When he said
"direct" he meant it went from Mutt to his local MTA (via a
command-line 'sendmail' utility) and then to his ISP's mail server
and finally to the recipient.

That would have been the same as the msmtp setup people try to make
him use,

Yes.

Post by Helmut Springer
and it would have required his MTA to be configured accordingly.

Yes.

Post by Helmut Springer
And if that worked why would he have to change anything in the first
place?

I don't know, but that's how he explained it on the mailing list
thread.

He had a working setup that used whatever MTA his distro installed by
default via mutt's "old" method of invoking a command-line sendmail
utility. He called this method "sending mail directly without using
SMTP".

He changed it to enable mutt's SMTP client subsystem, and it didn't
work. He calld this "using SMTP". IIRC, he was using the wrong port
number. He fixed the port number and it worked.

Post by Helmut Springer
All a mood point since the OP seems to have abandoned his thread
anyway,

True, but this is Usenet: where moot points never die. ;)

[Helmut Springer]

Post by Grant Edwards
True, but this is Usenet: where moot points never die. ;)

Point taken 8)

[Ian Zimmerman]

Post by RS Wood

Post by Ian Zimmerman
Just as in the mutt-users mailing list, you'll have to define "direct
email".

I assume that means IMAP, where you manipulate the mail directly on the
server instead of offloading it to your local box.

I thought this whole thread was about _sending_ outgoing mail, and IMAP
is just a store for received mail. Are those assumptions wrong?

I guess one could have some hook whereby messages in a special IMAP
folder are queued for submission and sending, but that seems like an
overly complex way of doing things. Are there examples of ISPs
requiring such setup?