On 10/27/2017 10:40 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
> On 10/27/2017 10:27 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
>
>>
>>> Well, so far, all you have given us is a log message, one rule, and a
>>> "It works sometimes".
>>>
>>> Given that the rule you posted doesn't include a log level, but a log
>>> m
On 10/27/2017 10:56 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
> cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
>
>> Eh, except I got bounced with:
>>
>> SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:
>> :
>> 504 5.5.2 : Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname
> You would sending mail direct to me as well - your m
cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
> Eh, except I got bounced with:
>
> SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:
> :
>504 5.5.2 : Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname
You would have the same problem sending mail direct to me as well - your mail
server is not correctly co
cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
> Eh, except I got bounced with:
>
> SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:
> :
> 504 5.5.2 : Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname
You would sending mail direct to me as well - your mail server is not correctly
configured !
Your mail
On 10/27/2017 10:27 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
>
>> Well, so far, all you have given us is a log message, one rule, and a
>> "It works sometimes".
>>
>> Given that the rule you posted doesn't include a log level, but a log
>> message is being produced, I am wondering if the fw->net policy i
> Well, so far, all you have given us is a log message, one rule, and a
> "It works sometimes".
>
> Given that the rule you posted doesn't include a log level, but a log
> message is being produced, I am wondering if the fw->net policy is
> ACCEPT with a log level specified. If that is the case, t
On 10/27/2017 09:42 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
> On 10/27/2017 09:24 AM, PGNet Dev wrote:
>> On 10/27/17 8:48 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
>>> In fact half the time, REJECTs and DROPs are -not- logged, and I have
>>> to figure out why without the aid of informational messages.
>>
>> Sho
On 10/27/2017 09:24 AM, PGNet Dev wrote:
> On 10/27/17 8:48 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
>> In fact half the time, REJECTs and DROPs are -not- logged, and I have
>> to figure out why without the aid of informational messages.
>
> Shorewall does a great job of doing exactly what it's told to do
On 10/27/17 8:48 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
In fact half the time, REJECTs and DROPs are -not- logged, and I have to
figure out why without the aid of informational messages.
Shorewall does a great job of doing exactly what it's told to do.
If "half the time, REJECTs and DROPs are -not-
>> I'm getting:
>>
>> # dmesg
>> [181685.067416] Shorewall:fw-net:ACCEPT:IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=72.251.231.102
>> DST=199.127.58.3 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=53282 DF PROTO=TCP
>> SPT=17554 DPT=25 WINDOW=29200 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 UID=89 GID=89
> That looks like it's passing the traffic to me
cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
> Anyone know why Shorewall settings seem to have no effect on allowing SMTP
> out?
Why do you think that ?
> I'm getting:
>
> # dmesg
> [181685.067416] Shorewall:fw-net:ACCEPT:IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=72.251.231.102
> DST=199.127.58.3 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 I
Anyone know why Shorewall settings seem to have no effect on allowing
SMTP out? I'm getting:
# dmesg
[181685.067416] Shorewall:fw-net:ACCEPT:IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=72.251.231.102
DST=199.127.58.3 LEN=48 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=53282 DF PROTO=TCP
SPT=17554 DPT=25 WINDOW=29200 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 UI
12 matches
Mail list logo
