On 05/17/2011 03:05 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that there's much more to Dr. Venema than
Postfix, more than... queue the Transformers jingle.
Is Dr. Venema hiding the all spark ? :P
On 5/16/2011 7:10 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I am glad your problem was solved. Also, I hope this thread taught you
> a valuable lesson: instead of spreading misinformation and questioning
> the 'quality' of free advice, you could focus your efforts on the very
> basics of system admini
Jason,
I am glad your problem was solved. Also, I hope this thread taught you
a valuable lesson: instead of spreading misinformation and questioning
the 'quality' of free advice, you could focus your efforts on the very
basics of system administration. You may also benefit from a review of
the f
On May 16, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 10:38 AM, jason hirsh wrote:
>
>> I have a lot more to learn
>
> Nah, you've just spent too much time under water breathing through a
> tube. Eats away at the brain ya know. You demonstrated this when you
> contemplated switchin
On 5/16/2011 10:38 AM, jason hirsh wrote:
> I have a lot more to learn
Nah, you've just spent too much time under water breathing through a
tube. Eats away at the brain ya know. You demonstrated this when you
contemplated switching to Sendmail to solve this problem.
;)
--
Stan
On 5/16/2011 9:47 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> If the netmask is mis-configured (say, 0xff00) then that explains
>>> why we see no responses to connection attempts from 209.85.210.182
>>> (and other 209.* IP addresses).
>
> Wietse's amazing crystal ball strikes again! :)
Well, ya know, one just
Am 16.05.2011 18:22, schrieb Jerry:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:14:03 -0400
> jason hirsh articulated:
>
>> I was unable to get this quality of advice from the Freebsd forum
>
> Not surprising. The FreeBSD group is more concerned with bumping version
> numbers and blaming Microsoft and hardware ma
On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:14:03 -0400
jason hirsh articulated:
> I was unable to get this quality of advice from the Freebsd forum
Not surprising. The FreeBSD group is more concerned with bumping version
numbers and blaming Microsoft and hardware manufacturers for their
problems than in actually do
On May 16, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> jason hirsh:
>> What is the output of
>>
>> ifconfig -a | grep 209.160
>
> inet 209.160.65.133 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 209.160.71.255
>
> (this is the IP handling mail services)
>
>>
Wietse Venema:
> jason hirsh:
> > >>> What is the output of
> > >>>
> > >>> ifconfig -a | grep 209.160
> > >>
> > >> inet 209.160.65.133 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 209.160.71.255
> > >>
> > >> (this is the IP handling mail services)
> > >>
> > >> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff0
jason hirsh:
> >>> What is the output of
> >>>
> >>> ifconfig -a | grep 209.160
> >>
> >> inet 209.160.65.133 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 209.160.71.255
> >>
> >> (this is the IP handling mail services)
> >>
> >> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 209.255.255.255
> >>>
> >>
On May 16, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> jason hirsh:
>> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 209.255.255.255
>
> Well that explains everything. With this, your machine believes
> that all IP addresses in 209.* are on the local subnet.
>
>>> If the netmask is mis-configu
On May 16, 2011, at 10:47 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:29:10AM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
>> On May 16, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> jason hirsh:
08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 85011
jason hirsh:
> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 209.255.255.255
Well that explains everything. With this, your machine believes
that all IP addresses in 209.* are on the local subnet.
> > If the netmask is mis-configured (say, 0xff00) then that explains
> > why we see no respo
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:29:10AM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
> On May 16, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > jason hirsh:
> >> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
> >> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
> >> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS v
On May 16, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> jason hirsh:
>> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
>> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
>> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS val 2972295960 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
>
> So, you are receivin
jason hirsh:
> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS val 2972295960 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
So, you are receiving connection attempts from a Google system
mail-iy0-f182.goog
On May 15, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> jason hirsh:
>> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
>> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
>> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS val 2972295960 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
>
> SYN from google.com
jason hirsh:
> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS val 2972295960 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
SYN from google.com -> theoceanwindow-bv.com
> 08:40:34.037857 IP mail-iy0-f182.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 12:54 pm, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 05/15/2011 02:50 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
>>
>> this is the record of the exchange.. it does not appear to be what you
>> expected though
>>
>> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
>> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S],
On 05/15/2011 03:18 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
On May 15, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 05/15/2011 02:50 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
this is the record of the exchange.. it does not appear to be what
you expected though
08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
tuna.theocea
On May 15, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 05/15/2011 02:50 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
this is the record of the exchange.. it does not appear to be what
you expected though
08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119
On 05/15/2011 02:50 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
this is the record of the exchange.. it does not appear to be what you
expected though
08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS val 29722959
On May 15, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Le 15/05/2011 02:42, jason hirsh a écrit :
On May 14, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 01:56:00PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
I have also tried running the server with the IPFW turned off and
still
have the
On May 15, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Le 15/05/2011 02:42, jason hirsh a écrit :
On May 14, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 01:56:00PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
I have also tried running the server with the IPFW turned off and
still
have the
Le 15/05/2011 02:42, jason hirsh a écrit :
On May 14, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 01:56:00PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
I have also tried running the server with the IPFW turned off and still
have the issue with some gmail and mindspring.com users
I wo
On May 14, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 01:56:00PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
I have also tried running the server with the IPFW turned off and
still
have the issue with some gmail and mindspring.com users
I would like to suggest that further posts in th
Please keep replies on list Jason. Forwarding...
On 5/14/2011 11:38 AM, jason hirsh wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2011 4:01 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>
>>> I can connect to you mailserver:
>>>
>>> # telnet mail.kasdivi.com 25
>>> Trying 209.160.65
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 01:56:00PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
> I have also tried running the server with the IPFW turned off and still
> have the issue with some gmail and mindspring.com users
I would like to suggest that further posts in this threat are moot,
and should cease, unless and until
On May 14, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* jason hirsh :
Th eonly firewall I use is IPFW
Well, that's something! Could you somehow dump the rules?
Maybe it's accidentially dropping traffic which it should drop (typo!)
I double checked the ruleset and 25 and 2500 (which I have
* jason hirsh :
> Th eonly firewall I use is IPFW
Well, that's something! Could you somehow dump the rules?
Maybe it's accidentially dropping traffic which it should drop (typo!)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benj
On 5/14/2011 4:01 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> I can connect to you mailserver:
>
> # telnet mail.kasdivi.com 25
> Trying 209.160.65.133...
> Connected to mail.kasdivi.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com
Same here, from my Postfix host at 65.41.216.221:
~$ telnet
Since you mentioned IPFW, I'm going to assume your server is
running FreeBSD. I haven't used FreeBSD in some time, but I think
I remember enough to be able to offer a few suggestions.
If you're using IPFW, you should check your firewall configuration
(/etc/rc.firewall?), turn on logging (net.inet
On May 14, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
jason hirsh:
I repeat my suggestion that you collect real data to show that
those SMTP packets from gmail actually reach you. Because when
you finally discover that they don't then you can go and fix the
real problem.
i have no idea HOW to g
jason hirsh:
> > I repeat my suggestion that you collect real data to show that
> > those SMTP packets from gmail actually reach you. Because when
> > you finally discover that they don't then you can go and fix the
> > real problem.
>
> i have no idea HOW to get that real data.. I do not have ac
Am 14.05.2011 13:36, schrieb Peter Evans:
> Apart from not actually reading what he said. I think you have some weird
> crap running on your machine. If you are running postfix, I would expect to
> see a postfix banner:
>
> Connected to 209.160.65.133.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 tuna.theo
Wietse wrote:
I repeat my suggestion that you collect real data to show that
those SMTP packets from gmail actually reach you. Because when
you finally discover that they don't then you can go and fix the
real problem.
You wrote:
i have no idea HOW to get that real data.. I do not have access
Am 14.05.2011 12:20, schrieb jason hirsh:
>> I repeat my suggestion that you collect real data to show that
>> those SMTP packets from gmail actually reach you. Because when
>> you finally discover that they don't then you can go and fix the
>> real problem.
>
> i have no idea HOW to get that
Am 14.05.2011 12:14, schrieb jason hirsh:
> thanks you for you suggestion on the TCP sniffer..
> of the responses I have received only yours offered a concrete
> suggestion instead of damning me
could you please stop your whining about people who explain
you that postfix is not involved if you
On May 13, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
jason hirsh:
If you want to solve this, then you will need to do the measurements
that provide the evidence of what is going on.
Until you can show network packets from gmail etc. trying to connect
to your Postfix server, you have no evidence
On May 14, 2011, at 5:01 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* jason hirsh :
the users can access my web page so web services are fine
they can ping my server. so DNS is fine
i have the message that says that it can't contact my mail server..
my MTA is Postfix where else could iI see help??
Do
On May 13, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/13/2011 5:09 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
i have the message that says that it can't contact my mail
server.. my MTA is Postfix where else could iI see help??
do I have to drop postfix and goback tosendmail to debug??
Your connectivity problem
* jason hirsh :
> the users can access my web page so web services are fine
>
> they can ping my server. so DNS is fine
>
> i have the message that says that it can't contact my mail server..
> my MTA is Postfix where else could iI see help??
Do you have other software like e.g. fail2ban runn
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 05:13:17PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
> am I to tell potential business.. "I can provide mail service
> for MOST of your contacts??"
As you know (if you are listening to what you are being told), you
have a non-Postfix issue here. Lacking shell access to the servers
which
jason hirsh:
> > If you want to solve this, then you will need to do the measurements
> > that provide the evidence of what is going on.
> >
> > Until you can show network packets from gmail etc. trying to connect
> > to your Postfix server, you have no evidence at all that this problem
> > belongs
Am 14.05.2011 00:09, schrieb jason hirsh:
> the users can access my web page so web services are fine
from the mailserver that can not connect?
no?
so it does not matter if somebody from somewhere else can connect!
> they can ping my server. so DNS is fine
from the mailserver that can not
On 5/13/2011 5:09 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
i have the message that says that it can't contact my mail
server.. my MTA is Postfix where else could iI see help??
do I have to drop postfix and goback tosendmail to debug??
Your connectivity problem isn't a postfix issue. Something in
between post
On May 13, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
jason hirsh:
On May 13, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Victor Duchovni:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:12:18PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect.
Learn more
athttp://mail.google.com/
jason hirsh:
>
> On May 13, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> >> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:12:18PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
> >>
> The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect.
> Learn more
> athttp://mail.google.com/support/bin/answ
On May 13, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Victor Duchovni:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:12:18PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect.
Learn more
athttp://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7720
[mail.kasdivi.com. (5): Connect
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:12:18PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
>
> >> The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more
> >> athttp://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7720
> >> [mail.kasdivi.com. (5): Connection timed out]
>
> If Google's TCP co
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:12:18PM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
>> The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more
>> athttp://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7720
>> [mail.kasdivi.com. (5): Connection timed out]
If Google's TCP connections time out, naturally y
i am on a leased server,, to the best of my knowledge no
On May 13, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
I have no proxies and have turned off the firewall
although the fact it works for some gmail and mindspring and not
other
is puzzling
Any Cisco firewall (ASA or PIX) on your side?
Ma
> I have no proxies and have turned off the firewall
> although the fact it works for some gmail and mindspring and not other
> is puzzling
Any Cisco firewall (ASA or PIX) on your side?
Mark
On May 13, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/13/2011 12:12 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
I posted this about two months ago
the problem continues .. Ihave removed postgrey in its entirety
I continue to have issues with some , not all , gmail users
and some, not all mindspring users
there i
On 5/13/2011 12:12 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
I posted this about two months ago
the problem continues .. Ihave removed postgrey in its entirety
I continue to have issues with some , not all , gmail users
and some, not all mindspring users
there is no record of any rejection in my mail log.. whic
I posted this about two months ago
the problem continues .. Ihave removed postgrey in its entirety
I continue to have issues with some , not all , gmail users and some,
not all mindspring users
there is no record of any rejection in my mail log.. which i have been
told means I am not the
57 matches
Mail list logo
