Thanks for the replies.
I tried "localhost" based on the suggestion. It doesn't seem to work either.
I am not as encouraged by finding four ways the didn't work as Edison was about finding a thousand.
In light of later findings (discussed at length after an aside), I am abandoning this issue for the moment.
I'm with you here:
Quote:
|
I don't do python, I hate being controlled by indentation.
|
It's one of the biggest drawbacks of the language.
I usually use perl or PHP for that reason -- in spite of the added complications of $-prefixed variables and semicolon-terminated lines.
What was wrong with BASIC?! I think that much has been lost in exchange for the snob-appeal of C-like languages.
Python did away with some complications, but they turned white-space into a structural element! What were they thinking?!
More about why I am abandoning the question about SMTP in Python for the moment:
I spent about a day trying to get GypsyMail to work. The flexibility that it offers is enticing. This report about cgiemail pushed me over the edge to try to switch to GypsyMail:
===
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....1b825aa893c617
---
This exploit works on ANY cgiemail form where any of the form fields
are reproduced in ANY header of the template file.
===
Unlike cgiemail: GypsyMail seems to be in active development, it is written in what I find to be an easier language than C, and the program isn't so large as to be odious to tweak if necessary. Plus, this is something that sounds like it has great appeal to me (though I haven't actually gotten far enough in testing to see whether it does what I want it to do):
======
http://www.thinkspot.net/sheila/stat...page=gypsymail
--------
Several "Success Page" options, including ... options for including parts of the sent email and/or form data
======
After being stymied in getting GypsyMail to work, I tried to see whether cgiemail is, in fact, as vulnerable as the old newsgroup posting suggests. Somehow, it wasn't. It appears that Page-Zone is on top of keeping cgiemail from becoming trouble.
Given the number of message forms submitted on my site so far, it isn't worth as much effort as I have put into it to improve on the drab "success" page emitted by cgiemail. I'm not happy that cgiemail reports the username for my account in error messages, but perhaps that isn't a huge problem.
Though it seems preferable in many ways, I don't know what, if any, kind of mischief GypsyMail is vulnerable to. I am not anxious to risk having my account turned off by finding out.
Thanks for your interest,
Webber