simple bare bones email server

Ok, I have this idea. Can anyone tell me if this makes sense?
I would like to be able to have the ability to communicate with and
control my home computer while I am away from home. I am familiar with
VNC and Remote Desktop but what if I am out and about, nowhere near an
Internet connection?
My idea is to use text email.
Almost any cellphone, for example, has the ability to send an email.
No Internet connection but an email can still find it's way to my
computer somehow.
Sure I can leave Outlook running on my home system and have a rule that
launched a VB program to parse commands I send and reply with the
results but we are talking Windows here. Anybody know how to run
Outlook as a service with no GUI so it runs at system start?
What I would like is a very basic email server that can run in the
background and listen for incoming email packets. When an email came
it it would be scanned for keywords and commands and pass these on to a
perl, cgi, VB, or whatever. The main idea is to have a very simple
listening core that was very unlikely to slow down the system or crash.

BDS

Re: simple bare bones email server

>The main idea is to have a very simple
>listening core that was very unlikely to slow down the system or crash.

If this is just to remote control some non standard, proprietary stuff
running on you PC, why not simply write a little service which opens
up a POP3 connection to the server you have your e-mails sent to (a
dedicated e-mail address you otherwise don't disclose), download them
and then parse/execute them?

POP3 is a lot easier to implement and since you connect to a trusted
server there are not too many issues you must take into account
security/abuse wise. Otherwise, writeing an SMTP reciveing engine
leves you with all the tricks/tampering abusers use to try to fool you
- and this is a moving target.

Writing a littel POP3 fetcher for the mentioned application is merly
opening a port 110 socket to the server and send and recive some
strings. Read RFC 1939 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1939.html to get an
overview. You can try with a telnet [ipadrress] 110 command in your
comand window to play around with your POP3 server right away to get a
feeling of what would be needed.

If you are afraid of writing network code, you might also get away
with using a tool that fetches the mails and stores them on your disc
and your service then only would process said files as they apear
there. There is a tool called fetchmail but I have no clue wether it's
available for Windows or not.

HTH

Markus

Re: simple bare bones email server

sparks691@centurytel.net wrote:

>What I would like is a very basic email server that can run in the
>background and listen for incoming email packets. When an email came
>it it would be scanned for keywords and commands and pass these on to a
>perl, cgi, VB, or whatever. The main idea is to have a very simple
>listening core that was very unlikely to slow down the system or crash.
I have a trivial program that periodically checks the email on my
account and flashes a system tray icon if it is present. It also
forwards selected mail from one account to another. It's only about
300 lines of Java and a large percentage of that is devoted to
manipulating the system tray icon.

Of course, it's not an "email server" but I don't think that is really
what you want.

Send me an email if you want the code. The "Reply to" address of this
post is invalid and you should address it to david at segall dot net.

Re: simple bare bones email server

David Segall writes:
>
> Send me an email if you want the code. The "Reply to" address of this
> post is invalid and you should address it to david at segall dot net.

Are you sure? It certainly looks valid. If there's a david at Nowhere
Networks in Mountain View, California, USA, he's probably not too
happy with you. And if there isn't, you're still causing nowhere.net
to have to handle unnecessary traffic.

Making up domain names is probably not a good idea. Even if they don't
exist today, they may tomorrow.

Tim

Re: simple bare bones email server

Tim Heaney wrote:

>David Segall writes:
>>
>> Send me an email if you want the code. The "Reply to" address of this
>> post is invalid and you should address it to david at segall dot net.
>
>Are you sure? It certainly looks valid. If there's a david at Nowhere
>Networks in Mountain View, California, USA, he's probably not too
>happy with you. And if there isn't, you're still causing nowhere.net
>to have to handle unnecessary traffic.
>
>Making up domain names is probably not a good idea. Even if they don't
>exist today, they may tomorrow.
Fair enough. My news reader (Agent) won't let me use a blank email
address and I am reluctant to start using a new reader. What do you
suggest I use as my "Return address"? If I did not mind changing News
readers which ones allow a null return address?

Re: simple bare bones email server

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:37:57 GMT, David Segall wrote:

>Fair enough. My news reader (Agent) won't let me use a blank email
>address and I am reluctant to start using a new reader.

You could put just David Segall in the From: field. I could with V
1.93, anyway.

--
Steve Baker

Re: simple bare bones email server

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Tim Heaney wrote:
> Are you sure? It certainly looks valid. If there's a david at Nowhere
> Networks in Mountain View, California, USA, he's probably not too
> happy with you. And if there isn't, you're still causing nowhere.net
> to have to handle unnecessary traffic.

This is not a theoretical problem. It happens, all over the world, every
day.

> Making up domain names is probably not a good idea. Even if they don't
> exist today, they may tomorrow.

Indeed. In a just society, it would be a crime to use anything other than
your true email address, and especially to use an email address/domain
that belongs to someone else. Those individuals who divert their spam
problem to an innocent third party are as guilty as the spammers.

If you don't want to use your real email address in your postings, then
don't post. The newsgroups would be better without you.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Re: simple bare bones email server

David Segall wrote:
[deleted]
> What do you suggest I use as my "Return address"?

Anything with ".invalid" at the *end* (see for example my (non-)
address).

".invalid" is a standard (RFC 2606) top-level domain which is
guaranteed to never exist. I.e. ".invalid" is OK.

Smart software like mailers will not even try to send mail to a
".invalid" address, so it is less burden on the world's DNS servers.

Re: simple bare bones email server

Mark Crispin wrote:

>If you don't want to use your real email address in your postings, then
>don't post. The newsgroups would be better without you.
>
>-- Mark --
>
>http://panda.com/mrc
>Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
>Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Now why aren't I surprised that you are more concerned with the
welfare of a DNS server than with encouraging people to participate in
a group? Fortunately there are people like Frank Slootweg who have
both the knowledge and the instinct to help people who are doing the
wrong thing.

Re: simple bare bones email server

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, David Segall wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> If you don't want to use your real email address in your postings, then
>> don't post. The newsgroups would be better without you.
> Now why aren't I surprised that you are more concerned with the
> welfare of a DNS server than with encouraging people to participate in
> a group?

Strawman argument.

There are far more negative consequences than "the welfare of a DNS
server" when you use a fake email address to redirect spam to an innocent
third party.

That innocent third party, in addition to getting his own spam, gets all
*your* spam. That innocent third party's server and network, which may be
a personal machine on a slow DSL line, gets all that spam. That innocent
third party loses disk space, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth that he
paid for.

All so you can hide behind a fake email address.

The ".invalid" convention doesn't have these particular problems.
Nonetheless, it indicates that you don't value your opinions highly enough
to put a verifiable name and email address to it; and thus by putting
yourself on the record with those words.

"Participation in a group" consists of more than scrawling graffiti on a
toilet stall.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Re: simple bare bones email server

David Segall wrote:

> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
> >If you don't want to use your real email address in your postings, then
> >don't post. The newsgroups would be better without you.

Humanity would be better off without Mr Crispin.


"Go with God Crispy"

Re: simple bare bones email server

Mark Crispin wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, David Segall wrote:
>> Mark Crispin wrote:
>>> If you don't want to use your real email address in your postings, then
>>> don't post. The newsgroups would be better without you.
>> Now why aren't I surprised that you are more concerned with the
>> welfare of a DNS server than with encouraging people to participate in
>> a group?
>
>Strawman argument.
>
>There are far more negative consequences than "the welfare of a DNS
>server" when you use a fake email address to redirect spam to an innocent
>third party.
>
>That innocent third party, in addition to getting his own spam, gets all
>*your* spam. That innocent third party's server and network, which may be
>a personal machine on a slow DSL line, gets all that spam. That innocent
>third party loses disk space, CPU cycles, and network bandwidth that he
>paid for.
>
None of this actually happened! Email to nowhere.net is not delivered
to anyone. The only consequence was wear and tear on a DNS server. A
detailed explanation of the obvious, to avoid an unlikely problem, is
a symptom of old age. From my own experience, I advise you to avoid
it. Of course, you are not wrong. It might have happened and when this
was pointed out to me I corrected my behaviour.
>All so you can hide behind a fake email address.
>
>The ".invalid" convention doesn't have these particular problems.
>Nonetheless, it indicates that you don't value your opinions highly enough
>to put a verifiable name and email address to it; and thus by putting
>yourself on the record with those words.
You have stated above that this would cause me to receive significant
amounts of extra spam. My experience told me that you are correct. I
chose to avoid the spam and I don't see how providing a disposable
email address makes my posts more valuable.
>
>"Participation in a group" consists of more than scrawling graffiti on a
>toilet stall.
>
>-- Mark --
>
>http://panda.com/mrc
>Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
>Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
I would prefer to be identified with someone who expresses their
opinion on toilet walls than with a sheep that uses a gun to enforce
their opinions.

Re: simple bare bones email server

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, David Segall wrote:
> None of this actually happened! Email to nowhere.net is not delivered
> to anyone. The only consequence was wear and tear on a DNS server.

nowhere.net has an A record of 205.178.189.131. That IP address does not
currently respond to an SMTP connection attempt. That does not mean that
there is no SMTP server at that site. It means that either there is a
packet filter that is blocking traffic to that site, or that site is down.

Either way, it is more than "wear and tear on a DNS server". Some set of
routers have to deliver the traffic to IP address 205.178.189.131; and
very probably some other router (or process) has to filter the packets.

For all that any of us know, that IP address may be behind a slow DSL line
that is being swamped with traffic that ends up being blocked.

Now, it may be that nowhere.net is frequently used as a fake domain name
in examples. However, the registered names for that purpose are
example.com, example.net, and example.org.

Nowhere Networks in Santa Clara, CA pays Network Solutions good money for
the use of "nowhere.net". Do you have authorization from them to use
their domain name for fake addresses? If not, doing so is theft.

> A
> detailed explanation of the obvious, to avoid an unlikely problem, is
> a symptom of old age.

It is also a symptom of teachers imparting wisdom to inattentive pupils.

>> The ".invalid" convention doesn't have these particular problems.
>> Nonetheless, it indicates that you don't value your opinions highly enough
>> to put a verifiable name and email address to it; and thus by putting
>> yourself on the record with those words.
> You have stated above that this would cause me to receive significant
> amounts of extra spam.

I said no such thing.

The amount of extra spam caused by a harvested news posting is minor, at
most. Spammers have long since moved to other means to obtain email
addresses. Newsgroup harvesting is not a productive way of obtaining new
email addresses.

What is significant is when multiple individuals use the same (innocent
third party's) domain name as a fake address, especially with different
userids. A single barnacle does not kill a whale.

What also becomes significant is the practice of using those fake
addresses in other places, such as when signing up on web pages.
Spammers *are* harvesting those addresses.

> I
> chose to avoid the spam and I don't see how providing a disposable
> email address makes my posts more valuable.

You should enjoy it while you can. The legal and technical means to
abolish anonymous/fake postings are being put into place as we speak.

I don't necessarily agree with that project, but I've been following its
progress.

> I would prefer to be identified with someone who expresses their
> opinion on toilet walls than with a sheep that uses a gun to enforce
> their opinions.

The sheep doesn't enforce opinions on anyone, much less wolves, and even
less with a gun. The sheep merely removes mutton from the wolves' lunch
menu.

The sheep has no intent to force wolves to become vegetarian. Nor does
the sheep take positions on whether venison belongs on the wolves' menu.
The sheep merely protects its own individual right to life, liberty, and
the persuit of happiness.

There is a third choice besides being prey or predator. That choice is to
leave the prey along (by choice), and to be left alone by the predators
(by having a credible defense).

It is absolutely your right to choose to be prey. It is not your right to
make that choice for others.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Re: simple bare bones email server

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:58:05 -0700, Mark Crispin
wrote:

>The amount of extra spam caused by a harvested news posting is minor, at
>most. Spammers have long since moved to other means to obtain email
>addresses. Newsgroup harvesting is not a productive way of obtaining new
>email addresses.

They still do it, though, and if everybody used a real From: that was
deliverable to them, the harvesting would probably still be going strong.
I agree with almost everything you say, but jeez, lighten up. He changed
his MO when the ramifications were pointed out to him (even though he
didn't fully understand all the ramifications).
What I don't agree with is your general attitude toward
spoofing/munging. I have no problem at all with folks who do it properly.
What's the big deal? If someone doesn't want email responses to posts,
well, so what?
Just tossing in my $.02.

--
Steve Baker

Re: simple bare bones email server

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Steve Baker wrote:
> What I don't agree with is your general attitude toward
> spoofing/munging. I have no problem at all with folks who do it properly.
> What's the big deal? If someone doesn't want email responses to posts,
> well, so what?

By "doing it properly", I presume that you mean that the domain name of
the fake address either uses the ".invalid" suffix or uses a reserved name
such as "example.com".

One problem is that, all too often, people forget that they have a fake
address in place when they put in support requests. This often leads to
an extended tragicomedy in which an increasingly irate user sends
increasingly angry messages to a support team which is utterly unable to
respond.

Long essays have been written about the social problems of anonymous
speech. Newspapers do not publish anonymous letters for a reason. I
won't belabor the point. [Not that posts are truly anonymous. They can
be, and are, traced.]

There is the ongoing problem of people who do not "do it properly". The
use of someone else's email address or domain name to stymie marketers is
no different than the use of someone else's phone number or postal address
for the same purpose.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.