Re: SMTP log entry

2005-05-09 Thread jaynvt
Thanks.. still learning .. appreciate your help [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I found this in my smtpserver log .. is it a valid attempt from another server to send mail or is it an attempt to use me for a relay? Hello, it's just a connection attempt from a remote host: the tcp connection has

Re: SMTP log entry

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> Hi I found this in my smtpserver log .. is it a valid attempt > from another server to send mail or is it an attempt to use > me for a relay? Hello, it's just a connection attempt from a remote host: the tcp connection has been closed before any command. It could be a port-probing software or

Re: SMTP log entry

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> Hi I found this in my smtpserver log .. is it a valid attempt > from another server to send mail or is it an attempt to use > me for a relay? Hello, it's just a connection attempt from a remote host: the tcp connection has been closed before any command. It could be a port-probing software or

SMTP log entry

2005-05-09 Thread jaynvt
Hi I found this in my smtpserver log .. is it a valid attempt from another server to send mail or is it an attempt to use me for a relay? tks.. Jay smtpserver x log 08/05/05 12:47:44 INFO smtpserver: Connection from 222.64.181.180 (222.64.181.180) 08/05/05 12:50:53 ERROR smtpserver: Socket

Re: Serious bandwidth begin consumed by James

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> I have another question though. I was able to setup my test > environment to test out the bounceProcessor (which works > correctly). I can see in the logs when a message is rejected > by the other server. However, James continues to send the message. > > Should James stop sending the messa

Re: Serious bandwidth begin consumed by James

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> I have another question though. I was able to setup my test > environment to test out the bounceProcessor (which works > correctly). I can see in the logs when a message is rejected > by the other server. However, James continues to send the message. > > Should James stop sending the messa

Re: Serious bandwidth begin consumed by James

2005-05-09 Thread Chris Hane
Daniel, I also tracked down the code and figured out it was the same issue that you did. Rather than modify what is being caught, I added a to the mailet. See one of the emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] for details. The bounceProcessor allows for a bounce message and will not attach any attac

Re: Serious bandwidth begin consumed by James

2005-05-09 Thread Chris Hane
Thanks for the hint about using the bounceProcessor. That works like a charm. I have another question though. I was able to setup my test environment to test out the bounceProcessor (which works correctly). I can see in the logs when a message is rejected by the other server. However, James

Re: Changing port

2005-05-09 Thread Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini
Another way is not to use port forwarding and have james listen on port 25 *and any other ports*. To do that, have a look at http://wiki.apache.org/james/UsingSSL - section "James setup example for SMTPS", with the following differences (to ignore ssl specific stuff): 1) set false 2) ignore th

Re: Changing port

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> I'm sorry I didn't explained well: > > James Server is outside my company and it is not firewalled. > Mail client is inside my company and it is firewalled, > > So I cold use port forward? is it? > It means that James receive on port 25 and it is accessible > on another port also? is this rigt

Re: Changing port

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> I'm sorry I didn't explained well: > > James Server is outside my company and it is not firewalled. > Mail client is inside my company and it is firewalled, > > So I cold use port forward? is it? > It means that James receive on port 25 and it is accessible > on another port also? is this rigt

Re: Changing port

2005-05-09 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm sorry I didn't explained well: James Server is outside my company and it is not firewalled. Mail client is inside my company and it is firewalled, So I cold use port forward? is it? It means that James receive on port 25 and it is accessible on another port also? is this rigth? How may I do it

RE: Changing port

2005-05-09 Thread Daniel Perry
Short answer: No! Mail servers look for your server on port 25. There are ways to achieve this using port-forwarding, etc, but if you have no control over your firewall, and dont have an external server that you can use port 25 on to forward, then i dont know a way you can do it. Daniel. > ---

Changing port

2005-05-09 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A simple quastion. Since my company has firewalled port 25 I can't read mail from my mail reader, so I changed SMTP port to a 465 value, without enabling TLS. I can send mail to others, but can't receive mails from others domain, is this due to port changing, is it possible to work on a SMTP port

Re: Newbie Question

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> i am attempting to setup JAMES as an SMTP/POP3 server on my > machine and i am running into obsatcles > > The first question i have is am i using the correct product? Yes. > I am looking for a product that will manage emails to and > from a host.. for instance SMTP and POP3 requests from

Re: Newbie Question

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> i am attempting to setup JAMES as an SMTP/POP3 server on my > machine and i am running into obsatcles > > The first question i have is am i using the correct product? Yes. > I am looking for a product that will manage emails to and > from a host.. for instance SMTP and POP3 requests from

Re: Duplicate Mail

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> A few users of my server seem to be getting delivered > duplicate messages. I've checked all forwrds and vituser > tables and there seem to be no problems. This doesn't seem > to happen immediatley, but rather each time they check their > mail, it downloads all messages again. Any insights

Re: Duplicate Mail

2005-05-09 Thread apache
> A few users of my server seem to be getting delivered > duplicate messages. I've checked all forwrds and vituser > tables and there seem to be no problems. This doesn't seem > to happen immediatley, but rather each time they check their > mail, it downloads all messages again. Any insights