On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:22, Carlos Velasco <cvela...@cnic.es> wrote:
> I am NOT complaining at all, just giving my point of view. After all > this is one of the benefits of open source, to be cooperative and to see > multiple points of view, it tends to enhance products. > > I am fine with the workarounds supplied and can see your point of view, > although I can't agree with a loop detected that is not a loop, I see > that it happens because inet addresses are mixed between instances and I > have my view about wasting more public ip addresses to do this as I told > before. That's all. Thank you all for your answers and comments. :) The original principle of the loop detection is based on where DNS MX records would point to. That points to hostnames which point to IP addresses. Port numbers are not part of it and are assumed to be the SMTP port. How the detection is actually implemented could vary. But it is traditional that the port is always 25 for mail exchange between different servers, so assuming it is perfectly valid. There isn't a way for you to set up a mail server that others can send mail to in the normal way without it being on port 25. Something on another port is just a hack for some purpose. If it's a hack, it should have work arounds.
