• Welcome to Simple Machines Community Forum. Please login or sign up.
September 28, 2021, 01:22:56 PM

News:

Bored?  Looking to kill some time?  Want to chat with other SMF users?  Join us in IRC chat or Discord


Easy return-path fix

Started by Black Tiger, December 04, 2014, 06:24:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Black Tiger

I've seen various topics about the return-path not having the correct email address.
So I started a topic about it, but it seems people don't understand that SMF has an issue on this, because other scripts don't have that problem anymore for a longer time.

Problem is: return-path should be webmaster email, but somehow gets replaced by nobody@srv.hostdomain.com which should not happen.
It's not the MTA, that is working as designed. Some people also don't like to use SMTP mail.

Coreisp stated it in a thread like this:
QuoteThe nobody is most likely because your PHP is not running as CGI or suPHP and thus runs under the user "nobody".

Which is correct because there are enough servers which still don't run in suPHP or mod_ruid2, but in normal cli mode.

There is an easy solution for that already for years, by passing the php mail -f parameter to the sendmail command issued, which takes care of that problem and let's the given return-path be set anyway.
The possibility to let the admin add the -f parameter to php mail settings if needed, is not present in SMF, at least I can't find it.

So I would like to suggest that easy fix, if not already implemented in version 2.1.
Greetings, Black Tiger

Arantor

SMF did not include this parameter for years because it was not compatible with safe_mode which is only just starting to be phased out. (Trying to use -f with mail()'s additional_parameters option with safe_mode would cause it to automatically fail)
No good deed goes unpunished
All helpful urges should be circumvented

Black Tiger

I did not ask why it wasn't implemented, but since you start.... ;)

That's exactly the reason why it should be a choice option. If it does not work, or give problems, set it to "no" again, and it could be set to "no" by default installation options. So that's really not a good argument not to have it present.

Next to that safe_mode is not "just starting" to be phased out, it's already deprecated since php version 5.3 which is already end of life since last year and almost end of support now (by December 31th).  5.3 started in 2009 which is already almost 6 years ago.

Since it is even removed in php 5.4 it would be a good time for this suggestion to implement.;)
Greetings, Black Tiger

Arantor

The problem is, what you seem to think should be so is very discordant with what is actually so.

We still see hosts - DAILY - running PHP 5.2. Yes, I know 5.2 has been EOL for some time, and that even 5.3 is on life support but what should happen and what does actually happen are two very different things.

We also have enough users with trouble with email without making it even more complicated with such things like having to configure non-default options just to get it to work. You clearly overestimate the relative competence of our users.
No good deed goes unpunished
All helpful urges should be circumvented

Black Tiger

QuoteThe problem is, what you seem to think should be so is very discordant with what is actually so.
No that's not the problem at all. The problem is that you don't want to understand my intentions and for that reason interpreter me wrongly.

I made a suggestion, and to answer your question, I argumented why my suggestion should be made a choice and was not ment as a default "on" option.
You take it somewhere else, you feel offended and I don't know why.

QuoteYou clearly overestimate the relative competence of our users.
OMG, I wouldn't say it like that if I were you. Because that's another way of stating that users of most other scripts who have that option, including other forums are more competent then SMF users? Can't imagine that.
Again, it could be set to no by default, no problems. And again, it's just a suggestion.

I don't understand why your reactions are so agressive. It's a feature suggestion forum here, correct? I made a suggestion not a "you must do this".
And I never only say "i would like this" but I also like to provide some arguments why it might be a good feature. Nothing more, nothing less.
Greetings, Black Tiger

margarett

In any case, not wanting to repeat myself, it's the first time I've seen this issue. Not debating the fact that other scripts work and SMF doesn't, in your setup.

Being this a Feature Request, let's wait our developers pick it ;)
Se forem conduzir, não bebam. Se forem beber... CHAMEM-ME!!!! :D

QuoteOver 90% of all computer problems can be traced back to the interface between the keyboard and the chair

Arantor

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you seem to overestimate the technical competence of our users - not any other misunderstanding you choose to read from it, and that you keep misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We have users that cannot follow even basic instructions. That cannot even follow guides spelling out how to do things in a step by step fashion. That can't even follow 'click here to upgrade'.

We even have users who change the list of posts to be newest first in their profile (which is firmly not the default)... and then come to ask us what they've done. This was, at one time, happening weekly. The average SMF user is not technically minded. Half of them don't even really understand what a server actually is.

Giving them an option like that which is hopelessly complex for them to understand... waste of time.
No good deed goes unpunished
All helpful urges should be circumvented

Black Tiger

That's oke Margarett.

@Arantor:
QuoteWe have users that cannot follow even basic instructions. That cannot even follow guides spelling out how to do things in a step by step fashion. That can't even follow 'click here to upgrade'.
Wow. The only reason I can think of why that's the case, is because SMF is so very popular and have an enormous lot of users compared to some others.
I now better understand why you opt against this -f parameter option.

Maybe I can add to my suggestion the option to put a warning next to it in red text? Or to make it an option which can only be done by a source file edit (Like remove a comment somewhere)? This way only the more experience user can do it.
Developpers can think of both our arguments about it.

No hard feelings in my behalve anyway Arantor! I really respect you and it's never my intention to irritate you.
And hosts still running php 5.2 are stupid, nobody should get an account there our get out quickly as possible.

Let's wait indeed for the dev's if they are interested or not.;)
Greetings, Black Tiger

Arantor

Users don't read warnings in big red text, we've learned this.

Source edits would make a lot more sense for such a thing, in which case you could just make a source edit yourself.

if (!mail(strtr($to, array("\r" => '', "\n" => '')), $subject, $message, $headers))

if (!mail(strtr($to, array("\r" => '', "\n" => '')), $subject, $message, $headers, '-faddress@domain.com'))

Job done.
No good deed goes unpunished
All helpful urges should be circumvented

Black Tiger

That would't be a dynamic -f fix, but a static fix is fine by me too. Thanks a million!!

But if you don't mind, I won't retract the feature suggestion.;)
Greetings, Black Tiger

Advertisement: