>
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:22:00AM -0400, Shelley Waltz wrote:
>>
>>> >> # postconf -n
>>> >> masquerade_domains = !master2.cabm.rutgers.edu
>>> !raven.cabm.rutgers.edu
>>> >> !heron.cabm.rutgers.edu cabm.rutgers.edu
>>> >
>>> > This looks OK, show unedited (consistent localpart mangling is OK, if
>>> you
>>> > mangle consistently, DO NOT modify the domainpart) logging for a
>>> message
>>> > that did not get masqueraded, and the envelope and headers as sent
>>> and
>>> as
>>> > received. You never did mention which hostname failed to be
>>> masqueraded.
>>> >
>>> >> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, nmrlab.$mydomain,
>>> >> $mydomain
>>> >> mydomain = cabm.rutgers.edu
>>> >> myhostname = roadrunner.cabm.rutgers.edu
>>> >> mynetworks = 192.76.178.0/24 128.6.56.128/25 127.0.0.0/8
>>> >> myorigin = $mydomain
>>> >
>>> > This should be sufficient to masquerade the hosts under
>>> "cabm.rutgers.edu"
>>> > that not (in or) the exception sub-domains.
>>>
>>> (mail for puma.cabm.rutgers.edu loops back to myself)
>>> (mail for buena.cabm.rutgers.edu loops back to myself)
>>> (mail for falcon.cabm.rutgers.edu loops back to myself)
>>> (mail for rhino.cabm.rutgers.edu loops back to myself)
>>
>> This is not unedited logging. Show all logging for the queue-ids in
>> question.
>
> messages in maillog look like this ...
>
> Apr 12 05:25:21 roadrunner postfix/smtp[10809]: B7D9311D8008:
> to=<r...@buena.cabm.rutgers.edu>, relay=none, delay=43453,
> delays=43453/0.01/0/0, dsn=4.4.6, status=SOFTBOUNCE (mail for
> buena.cabm.rutgers.edu loops back to myself)
>
>
I am still unclear on resolving this issue. As I mentioned, my previous
postfix with the same configuration allowed all hosts on my single(no
virtual)domain configuration to be masqueraded. This was true for all
hosts except those specified in masquerade_domains with the ! negation.
I want to do exactly this for the new server, but mail to
u...@hostmane.domain.edu does not masquerade and receives the loops back
to myself error. It is perplexing that such a simple issue cannot have a
simple resolution, or did something change between postfix--2.0.18 and
postfix-2.3.3?
