Nutsy are us... I was looking at the one line:
Apr 28 12:02:21 fred postfix/smtp[8609]: 249A81E0303: to=<root@C> This is from Fred's log. Why is the "to" to root at the e-mail source? I am sending to a non-root personal address external to the environment. Leam On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Corey Quinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Check your logs on both ends, including what the next hop was. Mail doesn't > just disappear unless you've done something really nutsy on one end! > > Regards, > Corey Quinn > > > On Apr 28, 2014, at 1:03 PM, leam hall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well... >> >> inet_interfaces = 1.2.3.4, 127.0.0.1 >> inet_protocols = ipv4 >> local_recipient_maps = >> mynetworks = 1,2,3.0/28, 3.4.5.6, 127.0.0.0/8 >> relayhost = [10.11.12.13] >> >> Last line in /var/log/maillog: >> >> Apr 28 12:02:21 fred postfix/smtp[8609]: 249A81E0303: to=<root@C>, >> relay=10.11.12.13[10.11.12.13]:25, delay=0.18, delays=0.05/0.0 >> 1/0/0.11, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as AA117390141) >> Apr 28 12:02:21 fred postfix/qmgr[8605]: 249A81E0303: removed >> >> >> Running mailq on C and Fred shows the mail is gone. Never makes it to >> the destination. Before I look at the main mail gateway, is there >> anything else I need to look at locally? >> >> Leam >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:20 PM, leam hall <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yeah, Fred has a complex. However, all the requirements so far >>> are...well...required. There may be more, that's why the "granular" >>> need. >>> >>> Let me go do some playing with Postfix and see what happens. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Corey Quinn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Oh boy, an email question! >>>> >>>> Time to dust off my memories... >>>> >>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Nathan Hruby <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Fred is what you would call a "smarthost" in MTA parlance. >>>> >>>> >>>> How sendmail-centric of you. With Postfix (which I'd recommend for this) >>>> your term is relayhost. >>>> >>>> Note that the edge system may not need a full blow MTA running on >>>> them. Something like ssmtp, dma, etc.. may be simpler and more >>>> secure. >>>> >>>> >>>> Right. A relatively dumb "forward and forget" system at the originating >>>> system makes sense; the inbound IP restrictions (add each one in >>>> my_networks), the rules for Fred being a princess (transport_maps will save >>>> you here provided your routing table is correct), message_size_limit will >>>> help-- but be aware that you probably want to go 33% high on this number; >>>> MIME encoding adds some overhead. >>>> >>>> If Fred needs to rewrite the envelope, header_checks can do this. >>>> >>>> Lastly, this seems fairly complex. I think you might be better off pushing >>>> back against some of these requirements; it's a bit arcane! >>>> >>>> -- Corey >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mind on a Mission >> >> >> >> -- >> Mind on a Mission > -- Mind on a Mission _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
