Le 19/07/2011 09:05, Jeroen Geilman a écrit : > On 2011-07-19 00:31, mouss wrote: >> Le 18/07/2011 19:01, Jeroen Geilman a écrit : >>> On 2011-07-17 20:19, mouss wrote: >>>> Le 17/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Zehbe a écrit : >>>>> Hello List, >>>>> >>>>> I have an installtion using bitdefender as a virus scanner using the >>>>> content_filter option. >>>>> bitdefender's smtp daemon listens on port 10025, in main.cf therefore >>>>> this is defined: >>>>> >>>>> content_filter = smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025 >>>>> >>>>> In master.cf a second instance of smtpd is defined, listening on port >>>>> 10026: >>>>> >>>>> 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - 10 smtpd >>>>> -o content_filter= -o smtp_send_xforward_command=yes >>>>> >>>>> When smtp tries to send the mail to bitdefender for scanning, this >>>>> happens: >>>>> >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 220 linuxgw.myown.net ESMTP Postfix >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: warning: host >>>>> 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] greeted me with my own hostname linuxgw.myown.net >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:> 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> EHLO linuxgw.myown.net >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 250-linuxgw.myown.net >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 250-PIPELINING >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 250-SIZE 502400000 >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 250-VRFY >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 250-ETRN >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 250-XVERP >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]:< 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: >>>>> 250 8BITMIME >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: warning: host >>>>> 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] replied to HELO/EHLO with my own hostname >>>>> linuxgw.myown.net >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: connect to subsystem >>>>> private/defer >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: send attr nrequest = 0 >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: send attr flags = 0 >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: send attr queue_id = >>>>> 2859B35121 >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: send attr >>>>> original_recipient = tz@localhost >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: send attr recipient = >>>>> t...@localhost.myown.net >>>>> Jul 17 11:42:55 linuxgw postfix/smtp[20313]: send attr reason = mail >>>>> for 127.0.0.1:10025 loops back to myself >>>>> >>>>> main.cf contains >>>>> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain,$mydomain >>>>> >>>>> I think, the bitdefender uses a correct answer for the EHLO, there is >>>>> no way (i know of) to change the 250 answer of bitdefender. >>>>> >>>>> After a dozen hours of research any hint would be appreciated. >>>>> >>>> first, is myown.net a domain of yours, or are you hijacking it? are you >>>> exposing domains of others? that would be really bad... >>>> >>>> second. you need to setup different hostames for the various pieces of >>>> servers you use. you'll have problems if one piece connects to another >>>> and both think they are the same "name". with postfix, use different >>>> myhostname values. >>> >>> I think that's only required if you're using multiple instances that >>> send SMTP mail to each other - and he's running 2.0 :) >>> >> no. you need different names even with a single instance. as soon as one >> piece talks to another over the network, each needs an identity. > > He's only running one postfix smtpd, the other host in the above log is > bitdefender. > The simplest would be to change the hostname of either postfix or > bitdefender, whichever makes more sense. > >> is is >> easily solved with smtp_helo_hostname... > > smtp_helo_name </nitpick>
indeed! I need to update my brainware :) Thanks for the correction. > > And you're right, that exists in 2.0. > >>> Many features we expect as given will be missing in his setup, he should >>> upgrade and then approach the problem fresh. >>> >>> > >
