Postfix, Mutt And No Root Mail?

[Leonard Chatagnier]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> > I no longer get root mail since upgrading to
> Feisty
> > using Postfix default installation and installing
> > Mutt(not auto installed).
> > Have tried dpkg-reconfigure Postfix a couple of
> times
> > using "local" and "network"(I think, the last
> choise
> > anyway) with no joy.  Running Mutt as user
> assigned to
> > receive root mail says "/var/mail/<user> is not a
> > mailbox."  In the past with several versions of
> Debian
> > and Ubuntu versions, the default setups have
> always
> > given me "root Mail" but not now and I don't know
> much
> > about Linux mail systems. I use Yahoo web mail for
> all
> > personal email so I don't think I really need
> Postfix
> > but would still like to get root mail.  Any
> > suggestions on how to fix is appreciated?
> > 
> > Leonard Chatagnier
> > lenc5570 at sbcglobal.net
> 
>     As root (go through the sudo -i process) create
> a file called
> /root/.forward containing the address to which you
> want root's mail sent.
> 
Ok, thanks for the reply but don't understand above.
I could do: sudo -i process(literal) and enter a name
"/root/.forward" and hit enter; is that right? Then
how do I enter the address to send root mail to?
username at what,where? Ubuntu is the machine name. Is
that what goes afer the "@"?  Sorry to be so dumb but
never used the process command before.

>     And/or...
> 
>     Edit /etc/aliases to add:  root:  
> myname at mymail.com
>
I have in /etc/aliases "root: <username>" but no email
address. I know myname is bound to be my username
because that's who root mail goes to.  What about
"mymail.com"? Is that to be literal or just what?
I did say I know very little about linux internal mail
protocol and have always just answered to "install" or
"-reconfigure" questions in the past and it just
worked for root mail.  The questions asked in Feisty
are somewhat different now? Some clarification is
welcomed.
Thanks for your reply.
>     I've seen the arguments for using both,
> actually; it's not a bad idea...
> - --
> 

Leonard Chatagnier
lenc5570 at sbcglobal.net