I am having great difficulty in getting SMTP-AUTH working on a mail server. I went through this not too long ago on another box, and was able to get it working (SSL is another story). On this box, when I try to send an email, I get the following in maillog:

Feb 26 23:42:16 ns1 sm-mta[1783]: NOQUEUE: connect from node-40241be2.mdw.onnet.us.uu.net [64.36.27.226] Feb 26 23:42:16 ns1 sm-mta[1783]: AUTH: available mech=NTLM LOGIN ANONYMOUS PLAIN GSSAPI OTP DIGEST-MD5 CRAM-MD5, allowed mech=PLAIN LOGIN
Feb 26 23:42:16 ns1 sm-mta[1783]: k1R5gGCB001783: Milter: no active filter
Feb 26 23:42:17 ns1 sm-mta[1783]: k1R5gGCB001783: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=node-40241be2.mdw.onnet.us.uu.net [64.36.27.226], reject=550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Relaying denied. Proper authentication required.

I checked to see if saslauthd was running:
ns1# ps -aux | grep saslauthd
root 532 0.0 0.4 2824 1884 ?? Is 8:41PM 0:00.02 /usr/local/sbin/saslauthd -a pam root 533 0.0 0.3 2776 1604 ?? I 8:41PM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/saslauthd -a pam root 534 0.0 0.3 2776 1604 ?? I 8:41PM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/saslauthd -a pam root 535 0.0 0.3 2776 1604 ?? I 8:41PM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/saslauthd -a pam root 536 0.0 0.3 2776 1604 ?? I 8:41PM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/saslauthd -a pam

The only other mention in any of the logs regarding sasl I could find was this:

Feb 26 20:41:53 ns1 saslauthd[532]: detach_tty      : master pid is: 532
Feb 26 20:41:53 ns1 saslauthd[532]: ipc_init : listening on socket: /var/state/saslauthd/mux

System is FreeBSD 6.0 using a fresh install. System has latest ports of Sendmail, IMAP-UW, Cyrus-SASL2, Cyrus-SASL2-Auth

I can relay without a problem if I add my IP to the Sendmail Access db, but it won't work with SMTP-AUTH.

Sendmail was installed as part of the base install. I added the following commands to /etc/make.conf:
SENDMAIL_CFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include -DSASL=2
SENDMAIL_LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib
SENDMAIL_LDADD=-lsasl2

I then ran the whole make buildworld, make kernel, etc. deal, then recompiled Sendmail as follows:

cd /usr/src/usr.sbin/sendmail
make clean
make depend
make
make install

Added the following to my mc file:

define(`confAUTH_MECHANISMS',`PLAIN LOGIN')dnl
TRUST_AUTH_MECH(`PLAIN LOGIN')dnl

ran make cf
make install
make restart

I added saslauthd_enable="YES" to /etc/rc.conf, and it appears to be starting at boot.

I checked /usr/local/lib/sasl2/Sendmail.conf, and have the following:
pwcheck_method: saslauthd

I then went back through and checked all of the Makefiles and startup scripts as I saw a bug mentioned in the docs that said to check the library paths (if compiling from scratch), and everything seems to be pointing to where it should be. I've gone through both systems and cannot find a difference in either the way they were compiled or configured, yet I'm at a standstill. The only difference is that on the system that is giving me fits is I rebuilt the /etc/pwd.db and /etc/spwd.db from a backup of master.passwd using pwd_mkdb. I checked the password dbs on both systems thinking I might have some kind of db compatability problem, both files on both systems came back as follows:

ns1# file /etc/pwd.db
/etc/pwd.db: Berkeley DB 1.85 (Hash, version 2, native byte-order)

ns1# file /etc/spwd.db
/etc/pwd.db: Berkeley DB 1.85 (Hash, version 2, native byte-order)

As far as I can figure out, saslauthd is configured to fall back to it's own database authentication scheme if other methods fail, and the "Milter: no active filter" error is probably it complaining that it can't find the database. Why isn't it checking the password file? Anyone have any ideas? I'm at my wit's end.

TIA
Greg Groth

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to