The first question you need to answer is -- how did 127.0.0.1 get into the "To:" header? Was it an addressing error on your part, or did something rewrite it to that value? I'd suggest you check the outbox of whatever program you used to send the message. If the "To: 127.0.0.1" line appears in your original, then it was just a typo and of no significance to your troubleshooting (that is, the reject is correct). If the original has a different To: line, then post a followup with the details -- what MUA, which system (hard disk) you were using, and what the original To: line said.Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:58:47 -0500 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Haines Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 127.0.0.1 Subject: test from lo 10 dec 13:58 Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it aids your memory, this message has a timestamp just 10 minutes before the one on the telnet test you did (and reported on) yesterday.
At 01:51 PM 12/11/02 -0500, Haines Brown wrote:
I ran fetchmail -V to get the version and other info, and there's little difference from what I've got with my current (RH7.3) system. The only difference is that on my current (RH7.3) system, old messages are flushed before retrieval, while on new system (RH8.0) --flush off.================================================================ Here is a bounced message. It was rejected by my own mailserver:
[details deleted] -- -------------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"-------- Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo Palo Alto, California, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
