On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:10:28PM +0100, Martin Lambers wrote: > > No, msmtp implements the sendmail commandline interface. It can only > signal failure by returning an error code. In the default configuration, > Mutt does not put msmtp in the background, so you get an immediate > failure notice. I see, I'll have to wrap it with a script that checks the exit code then. I was forced to configure it to run in the background because of transmission of large attachments... :-( > You upgraded your GnuTLS library recently, right? Yes. Such a quick response makes me apologize for not googling correctly. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=440344 > > In short, you have these options: > - Downgrade to an older GnuTLS version (not recommended) > - Use OpenSSL instead of GnuTLS (not recommended) > - Ask the SMTP server admins to use more secure settings > (recommended if the admins will listen to you) They don't. They insist that because the following command works on their end: $ openssl s_client -connect smtp.umr.edu:25 -starttls smtp that the mail server is not insecure and the problem is my client. > - Apply the one-line patch mentioned in the Debian bugreport to msmtp. > This will relax the default GnuTLS security settings > (recommended if fixing the server is not an option) I will do this. > Future msmtp version will most likely *not* override the GnuTLS default > settings. The GnuTLS people probably have very good reasons for the > stricter checks. Does this mean that a patch to msmtp is always required if the server is broken in this manner? -- Ryan C. Underwood, <nemesis@...128...>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature