Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > This is robust and easy to document. The work-arounds I posted
> > > also work, but are less elegant and should be avoided. If the
> > > OP wants to use them, fine, he is fully informed...
> >
> > I recommen
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > This is robust and easy to document. The work-arounds I posted
> > also work, but are less elegant and should be avoided. If the
> > OP wants to use them, fine, he is fully informed...
>
> I recommend a different myhostname per "p
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:30:35AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > > 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
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:30:35AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> > 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 m
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:22, Carlos Velasco 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 suppli
> Work WITH the system, or else stop complaining.
>
> Wietse
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 s
Carlos Velasco:
> > I think this is a mistake, in the sense that it is a crude work-around.
> > The right solution is keep the "inet_interfaces" settings of Postfix
> > instances *disjoint*, and to never forward mail to port 25 *within*
> > an instance. This keeps things clear and predictable.
> >
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Carlos Velasco wrote:
>
>>> Loop detection is on by default when the destination port is 25.
>>> Loop detection matches on either banner hostnames or interfaces
>>> or IP addresses found in inet_interfaces or proxy_addresses.
>>
>> It could be good to ha
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Carlos Velasco wrote:
> > Loop detection is on by default when the destination port is 25.
> > Loop detection matches on either banner hostnames or interfaces
> > or IP addresses found in inet_interfaces or proxy_addresses.
>
> It could be good to have a
> Loop detection is on by default when the destination port is 25.
> Loop detection matches on either banner hostnames or interfaces
> or IP addresses found in inet_interfaces or proxy_addresses.
It could be good to have a switch to turn it off for cases like this :)
> Alternatively, you can over
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:01:33PM +0200, Carlos Velasco wrote:
> The "dummy" instance has myhostname changed and relayhost set to:
> relayhost = [1.1.2.1]:25
The ":25" is not needed and best avoided.
> Problem is that "dummy" believes that destination is itself and "loops
> back to myself" is l
Some additional information.
Postfix version is 2.7.1
smtp -v shows:
Jun 17 18:36:00 mail:info postfix-dummy/smtp: postfix-dummy/smtp[4212]:
connecting to 1.1.2.1 port 25
Jun 17 18:36:00 mail:info postfix-dummy/smtp: postfix-dummy/smtp[4212]:
smtp_addr_one: host 1.1.2.1
Jun 17 18:36:00 mail:info
Hello,
I am having a weird problem of "loops back to myself" mail.
I have setup 2 postfix instances "work" and "dummy".
The "work" instance listen on IP 1.1.2.1 port 25 and deliver mail to
Internet and transport to another server for inside domains. This is
working fine.
The "dummy" instance is
13 matches
Mail list logo
