Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: Changing mail from nobody
-
12-09-2005, 12:19 PM #1Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 383
Changing mail from nobody
I'm not sure where and how some of my scripts are using the nobody name and needs to be changed (bulletin board php script.) These are used to mail registrations to people. AOL now refuses to accept all email from "nobody" since it considers this to be unsolicited spam. It's caused a lot of grief by us this week since people aren't getting their info. Is this a setting in whm? Perhaps cpanel since it's domain related... I haven't found one just yet.
-
12-09-2005, 12:38 PM #2Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
- Location
- uk
- Posts
- 42
To have PHP scripts run as your username instead of nobody you must get your host to install php with suexec enabled. This means all your PHP scripts run under your account username rather than nobody.
This would require a server-wide change though so they may not do this. If not you may have to find a host that do.Xurial.net
-
12-09-2005, 12:57 PM #3Disabled
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Posts
- 47
The only problem that I have seen with running suexec is that it does affect alot of php scripts causing alot of 500 internal service errors pages. It can be very tricky sometimes to make get the php scripts to function with the suexec.
-
12-09-2005, 02:20 PM #4Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 454
slinky, is it not possible to edit the php script to include whichever email address you prefer?
[color=#666666]Ackoo Solutions, LLC
-
12-09-2005, 02:50 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2001
- Posts
- 1,446
If you cannot set the return path in your script, have your host turn on envelope rewriting/masquerading and have them rewrite nobody@hostname to another address.
- John C.
-
12-09-2005, 06:01 PM #6Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 383
It's vbulletin that is sending out scripts from nobody. Here's what the headers of my emails look like -- apparently it's not from vBulletin. It's the header in the script. My return emails have a definite sender. AOL is not accepting emails set up as such. Of note, this is my own dedicated server and I'm learning as I go along all the complexities in running one... Thanks everyone...
1EkE86-000614-Ey-H
nobody 99 99
<nobody@mynameserver.myserver.net>
1****18942 1
-ident nobody
-received_protocol local
-body_linecount 31
-auth_id nobody
-auth_sender nobody@mynameserver.myserver.net
-allow_unqualified_recipient
-allow_unqualified_sender
-local
XX
1
everyone@aol.com
149P Received: from nobody by mynameserver.myserver.net with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1EkE86-000614-Ey
for everyone@aol.com; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:15:42 -0500
020T To: everyone@aol.com
064 Subject: Action Required to Activate Membership for vBulletin!
049F From: "vBulletin Forums" <webmaster@mydomain.com>
034* Return-Path: webmaster@mydomain.com
055I Message-ID: <200512080501.fa3732687403@www.mydomain.com>
014 X-Priority: 3
033 X-Mailer: vBulletin Mail via PHP
018 MIME-Version: 1.0
047 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
032 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
038 Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:15:42 -0500
-
12-09-2005, 06:04 PM #7Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 383
Originally Posted by JohnCrowley
-
12-09-2005, 06:18 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 2,625
I believe with vBulletin, you can turn on SMTP verification, can you not? If you are able to, this is one simple way around the issue.
SuperWebHost.com, a Digitally Justified Company
Celebrating our 9th year in Business
Proudly Hosting with CANADIAN bandwidth
Managed Hosting, Multi-Domain Hosting, Colocation, Merchant Accounts
-
12-09-2005, 06:40 PM #9Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 383
Originally Posted by VanHost
eturn-path: <newaccount@domain.com>
Envelope-to: newaccount@domain.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:36:32 -0500
Received: from domainadmin by mynameserver.mydomain.net with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.52)
id 1Ekqqt-0001SZ-Vv
for newaccount@domain.com; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:36:32 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on
mynameserver.mydomain.net
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=9.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
Received: from [64.62.134.202] (helo=mail.mydomain.com)
by mynameserver.mydomain.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.52)
id 1Ekqqt-0001SS-78
for newaccount@domain.com; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:36:31 -0500
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:36:31 +0000
To: newaccount@domain.com
From: "Forums" <newaccount@domain.com>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Message-ID: <200512092230.143d27716174@www.mydomain.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: vBulletin Mail via PHP
Subject: Action Required to Activate Membership
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
-
12-09-2005, 06:44 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 2,625
You could setup a new account "vb@domain.com" and use that email account as the verifier for SMTP This will keep you under-exposed, as it were
SuperWebHost.com, a Digitally Justified Company
Celebrating our 9th year in Business
Proudly Hosting with CANADIAN bandwidth
Managed Hosting, Multi-Domain Hosting, Colocation, Merchant Accounts
-
12-09-2005, 06:53 PM #11Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 383
Originally Posted by VanHost
-
12-09-2005, 07:00 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Posts
- 2,625
If you setup the SMTP to use an email account, it shouldn't say:
received from ACCOUNTUSERNAME by SERVERNAME
it should read:
received from email@domain.com by SERVERNAME
Does it not?SuperWebHost.com, a Digitally Justified Company
Celebrating our 9th year in Business
Proudly Hosting with CANADIAN bandwidth
Managed Hosting, Multi-Domain Hosting, Colocation, Merchant Accounts
-
12-09-2005, 07:35 PM #13Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 383
Yes - VanHost it does -- I realized that the SMTP account I set up to use was also the sender so it's confusing, LOL.
But here's the problem -- it uses ACCOUNTUSERNAME as a reply to address and seems that AOL is happy with that. But in the header it shows the following when using the vbulletin option to use SMTP:
Received: from domainusername by mynameserver.mydomain.net with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.52)
Interestingly enough, this doesn't happen when you send mail using SMTP from Outlook.
Received: from mynameserver.myserver.net (mynamerserver.mydomain.com [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]) by destinationserver (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) with ESMTP id jB9NVoeO073724
for <destinationeamil@destinationdomain.com>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:31:50 -0800 (PST)
-
12-09-2005, 07:36 PM #14Problem Solver
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- California USA
- Posts
- 13,681
Code:mail("$to", "$subject", "$message", "From: $from\nX-Mailer: PHP/ . $phpversion()", "-f $from");
Notice the -f... that is the from address. this is how you can bypass the nobody without using phpsuexecSteven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance
-
12-09-2005, 07:48 PM #15Disabled
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 383
Originally Posted by Steven
(1) Are you suggesting that this is in my script (vbulletin) - I think not since this is a mail header that is being compiled separately outside of the script and would not be script dependant, happening the same on every script that calls the mailto function. If so, where would I find the above code?
(2) In terms of changing it, are you suggesting that I get rid of the -f parameter? This would make sense to me and, again, I would need to know where I'm making that edit.
Once again, many thanks to all of you. Unfortunately, this problem will likely affect anyone running common scripts that use mailto and are set up this way. I'm not sure we have pphpsuexec installed and whether it would be beneficial (it seems not atm.)