On 2010-04-05 Josh Cason wrote: > So then from I could tell. Pop-Before-Smtp should not list 127.0.0.1 > and the server ip number then.
It should if you're doing POP from 127.0.0.1 or the server's IP address. Which you probably shouldn't. Why are you doing POP-before-SMTP instead of SMTP-auth anyway? > I guess what I'm asking is. I have this server doing multiple duties > including sending logwatch and webmail from the server via localhost. > This works great. But I think it might be a cause to my spamming > problem. I just don't have a way to test xxx fake e-mail to go through > the server from the outside to see if it gets changed and the local > network sends it. Do any of you have a good e-mail test program that I > can send stuff as a relay to the mychoice server. relay to relay > without setting up another e-mail server or full blown server? Yes I > know the server should accept outside mail. But not route outside mail > that does not belong to it. That is what is currently doing. > x...@yahoo.com is going to mutiple yahoo adresses via my server. (this > is a example. It does alot others.) Yet my server should say oh > x...@yahoo.com you have not business here. You are not going to one of > my email users. So it stops it. Since you still haven't shown the log excerpt of one full transaction (even after I specifically asked you to do so) we still don't know how the mail in question actually enters your server. Unless you provide sufficient information there's not much we can do to troubleshoot your problem. According to the log excerpt you posted, Postfix thinks that the mail is delivered from its own external address via SMTP (172.16.0.185 is the server's external address, right?), and accepts it, because that address is listed in the pop-before-smtp database. I'd start looking for two things: - Which process on primary is sending mail to primary via SMTP? (i.e. who/what is actually sending the spam mails) - Why is the server's own address listed in the pop-before-smtp database? (i.e. who is doing POP3 on the server itself) BTW, if you absolutely *must* use some broken mail client that handles neither In-Reply-To nor References header, could you *at least* leave the subject alone? So that non-broken mail clients have a chance to associate your responses with the respective thread? Thank you. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning." --Joel Spolsky
