error :
"mail for mail.mydomain.fr loops back to myself"
are you NORDNET? Because mydomain.fr belongs to them.
in main.cf there is mydestination = mydomain.fr
mydomain.fr is not mail.mydomain.fr. if you added mail. to your
mydestination, your mailserver would accept the mail as loc
* olivier:
> Can you help ?
See http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html , in particular the
"Reporting problems" section.
-Ralph
ydomain.fr loops back to myself"
in main.cf there is mydestination = mydomain.fr
and there is a line proxy_interfaces = myexternalinternetipadress
Can you help ?
Thank you
Olivier
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:28:10PM +0200, Vieri Di Paola wrote:
>
> > One of these mailbox servers has indeed the same "SMTP name" as one of
> > the Postfix servers. In this case, I do get a message like this in the
> > log: host XXX greeted me with my own hostname YYY
> >
> >
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:28:10PM +0200, Vieri Di Paola wrote:
> One of these mailbox servers has indeed the same "SMTP name" as one of
> the Postfix servers. In this case, I do get a message like this in the
> log: host XXX greeted me with my own hostname YYY
>
> However, it's only a WARNING, a
lt:
> >
> > postfix/smtp[22953]: AB3AB12404F: to=,
> > relay=10.0.200.50[10.0.200.50]:25, delay=0.09, delays=0.09/0/0/0,
> > dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for [10.0.200.50] loops back to
> > myself)
>
> Then send mail to and report the resulting
> verbose
04F: to=,
> relay=10.0.200.50[10.0.200.50]:25, delay=0.09, delays=0.09/0/0/0,
> dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for [10.0.200.50] loops back to
> myself)
Then send mail to and report the resulting
verbose logging (you can use "collate").
--
Viktor.
> postfix/smtp[22953]: AB3AB12404F: to=,
> relay=10.0.200.50[10.0.200.50]:25, delay=0.09, delays=0.09/0/0/0,
> dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for [10.0.200.50] loops back to
> myself)
By any chance, did postfix/smtp log a warning like this:
host XXX greeted me with my own hostname YYY
Ot
935321531.1891234@external.domain.org>
postfix/qmgr[22889]: AB3AB12404F: from=,
size=2855, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
postfix/smtp[22953]: AB3AB12404F: to=,
relay=10.0.200.50[10.0.200.50]:25, delay=0.09, delays=0.09/0/0/0,
dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for [10.0.200.50] loops back to
myself)
pos
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:58:44AM +0200, Vieri Di Paola wrote:
> > > The collate script seems to confirm that the non-delivery
> > > notifications have been sent out. I rest assured.
> >
> > And what is the output of:
> >
> > getent hosts $(
> > postconf -hx inet_interfaces proxy_inte
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 2:03 AM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 01:40:42AM +0200, Vieri Di Paola wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:35 AM Viktor Dukhovni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Not all log messages carry the queue-id. Use the collate.pl script
> > > to find any other pert
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 01:40:42AM +0200, Vieri Di Paola wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:35 AM Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
> >
> > Not all log messages carry the queue-id. Use the collate.pl script
> > to find any other pertinent log messages from 'smtp[13093]'.
>
> The collate script seems to
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:42 AM Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> You need to find out why 10.0.0.10 matches inet_interfaces or
> proxy_interfaces. Because that is why Postfix complains.
>
> Someting in /etc/hosts?
# grep -v ^# /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost
::1 localhost
I guess I on
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:35 AM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> Not all log messages carry the queue-id. Use the collate.pl script
> to find any other pertinent log messages from 'smtp[13093]'.
The collate script seems to confirm that the non-delivery
notifications have been sent out. I rest assured
Vieri Di Paola:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:18 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > You may want to check this:
> >
> > $ postconf transport_maps
> >
> > Output should list /etc/postfix/transport
> >
> > $ postmap -q mydomain.org /etc/postfix/transport
> >
> > Output should show mydomain.org
relay=none,
> delay=0.12, delays=0.12/0/0/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
> 10.0.0.10 loops back to myself)
> postfix/bounce[13228]: 3B4F21240B1: sender non-delivery notification:
> 586D11240B3
> postfix/qmgr[12956]: 3B4F21240B1: removed
Not all log messages carry the queue-id.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:18 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> You may want to check this:
>
> $ postconf transport_maps
>
> Output should list /etc/postfix/transport
>
> $ postmap -q mydomain.org /etc/postfix/transport
>
> Output should show mydomain.org smtp:[10.0.0.10]
# postconf transpo
ow
> > > > messages such as this one:
> > > >
> > > > postfix/smtp[13093]: A306E1240B1: to=, relay=none,
> > > > delay=0.06, delays=0.06/0/0/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
> > > > 10.0.0.10 loops back to myself)
> > >
> > >
and then
> > > > forwarded to the mailboxes.
> > > >
> > > > It has been working fine for years, but a few days ago some e-mails
> > > > were not coming in anymore, and the logs on the filtering server show
> > > > messages such as th
; It has been working fine for years, but a few days ago some e-mails
> > > were not coming in anymore, and the logs on the filtering server show
> > > messages such as this one:
> > >
> > > postfix/smtp[13093]: A306E1240B1: to=, relay=none,
> > > delay=0
t coming in anymore, and the logs on the filtering server show
> > messages such as this one:
> >
> > postfix/smtp[13093]: A306E1240B1: to=, relay=none,
> > delay=0.06, delays=0.06/0/0/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
> > 10.0.0.10 loops back to myself)
>
>
13093]: A306E1240B1: to=, relay=none,
> delay=0.06, delays=0.06/0/0/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
> 10.0.0.10 loops back to myself)
What has changed?
> I'm still trying to understand what that means exactly.
1) It means that postfix/smtp[13093] received a request to deli
unced (mail for
10.0.0.10 loops back to myself)
I'm still trying to understand what that means exactly.
# grep mydomain.org /etc/postfix/*
/etc/postfix/main.cf:proxy_interfaces = mail1.mydomain.org mail2.mydomain.org
/etc/postfix/main.cf:relay_domains = mydomain.org mydomain2.org
/e
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:27:06PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Why do you run two different smtp servers on the same host?
Multi-instance configurations can be simpler to design, each instance
does one thing well. Whether my work-around for IP-address sharing
is sufficiently simple is
mains and hostnames, but are both on the same IP
address.
If I try and send mail via the smarthost to the inbound smtp server the
postfix rejects the attempt with "mail for loops
back to myself". That's not an unreasonable thing for it to think, but is
there any way to tell post
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:12:40PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Steve Atkins:
> > I suspect the answer to this is going to be "Well, don't do
> > that then." but I may as well ask...
> >
> > I have a VM that's running two services. One of them is a vanilla
> > postfix smarthost - it accepts mail
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Steve Atkins:
>> I suspect the answer to this is going to be "Well, don't do that then." but
>> I may as well ask...
>>
>> I have a VM that's running two services. One of them is a vanilla postfix
>> smarthost - it accepts mail on port
Steve Atkins:
> I suspect the answer to this is going to be "Well, don't do that then." but I
> may as well ask...
>
> I have a VM that's running two services. One of them is a vanilla postfix
> smarthost - it accepts mail on port 587 and relays it out to the world.
>
> The other is an unrelate
server that listens for inbound email on port
25. They use unrelated domains and hostnames, but are both on the same IP
address.
If I try and send mail via the smarthost to the inbound smtp server the postfix
rejects the attempt with "mail for loops back to
myself". That's
ok, so for clarify a little more for me.
with this config the mail arrive to the zimbra, but... now the zimbra mails
dosent go to any other side.
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix
data_directory =
On 11/2/2017 9:55 AM, 9acca9 wrote:
> "Sounds like you're missing a transport_maps entry to tell postfix
> where to send mail for your domain. " are you sure?? because this is those
> kind of error???
>
Yes. Postfix receives mail for your domain but doesn't know to
forward it to your internal m
This are my Dns
mydomain.org.ar.IN MX 10 postfix.mydomain.org.ar.
mydomain.org.ar.IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx a:mydomain.org.ar
a:mydomain.ar
a:mydomain.org.ar a:mail.mydomain.org.ar ip4:190.210.185.50
ip4:190.2.135.194 ip4:190.2.135.195 ip4:190.2.135.196 ip4:190.2.135
On 11/1/2017 11:02 AM, 9acca9 wrote:
> This is the desing:
>
> local network
> (zimbra (192.168.1.5)) - (postfix (192.168.1.20))
> to=, relay=postfix.mydomain.org.ar[190.2.135.194]:25,
> delay=0.48, delays=0.19/0.01/0.28/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
> mydom
own
hostname postfix.mydomain.org.ar
Nov 1 12:50:53 postfix postfix/smtp[6211]: 292EFAFC09:
to=, relay=postfix.mydomain.org.ar[190.2.135.194]:25,
delay=0.48, delays=0.19/0.01/0.28/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
mydomain.org.ar loops back to myself)
Nov 1 12:50:53 postfix postfix/smtpd[
> Hello.
>
> I would also recommend having unique hostnames as well, so that postfix
> can keep track. It's perfectly fine to have the same IP.
>
> IE: mail.mydomain.com, mail2.mydomain.com etc
This working great, two different hostnames solves the problem
solution of one instance seems to be m
outside server i working great
> > when I received mail from outside server is working great
> >
> > but when i sended from me to me I have many errors
> > NOQUEUE: reject_warning: RCPT from 1-2-3-4.dynamic.xx[1.2.3.4]: 450 4.1.7
> > : Sender address rejected: unverified address: mail for
> > mydomain.dd loops back to myself; from=
> > to= proto=ESMTP helo=<[192.168.1.140]>
> >
> >
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 01:53:14PM +0200, michalr0 wrote:
> NOQUEUE: reject_warning: RCPT from 1-2-3-4.dynamic.xx[1.2.3.4]: 450 4.1.7
> : Sender address rejected: unverified address: mail for
> mydomain.dd loops back to myself; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=<[192.168.1.140]>
tside server i working great
when I received mail from outside server is working great
but when i sended from me to me I have many errors
NOQUEUE: reject_warning: RCPT from 1-2-3-4.dynamic.xx[1.2.3.4]: 450 4.1.7 :
Sender address rejected: unverified address: mail for mydomain.dd loops back to myself;
> when I received mail from outside server is working great
>
> but when i sended from me to me I have many errors
> NOQUEUE: reject_warning: RCPT from 1-2-3-4.dynamic.xx[1.2.3.4]: 450 4.1.7
> : Sender address rejected: unverified address: mail for
> mydomain.dd loops back to
]: 450 4.1.7
: Sender address rejected: unverified address: mail for
mydomain.dd loops back to myself; from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=<[192.168.1.140]>
Aug 2 13:20:46 node1 postfix-out/smtp[13651]: warning: host
mail.mydomain.dd[6.7.8.9]:25 greeted me with my own hostname node25.myserver.ss
Aug
thank you, makes it clear.
Jithesh
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:27:35 -0700, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:54:31AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Port 587 is not for inter-domain mail delivery. It is for submission
of mail by users (Outlook, Thunderbird, ...) to the outbound
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:54:31AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Port 587 is not for inter-domain mail delivery. It is for submission
> of mail by users (Outlook, Thunderbird, ...) to the outbound SMTP
> server of their domain. If you're operating an MTA that sends mail
> directly to remote do
Thank you, gives me better idea now.
Regards
Jithesh
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:54:31 -0700, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:44:20PM -0700, Jithesh AP wrote:
Currently sending mail is thru port 25, how to make it to use port 587
(i
understand that is more secure).
Port
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:44:20PM -0700, Jithesh AP wrote:
> Currently sending mail is thru port 25, how to make it to use port 587 (i
> understand that is more secure).
Port 587 is not for inter-domain mail delivery. It is for submission
of mail by users (Outlook, Thunderbird, ...) to the outb
Currently sending mail is thru port 25, how to make it to use port 587 (i
understand that is more secure).
Regards
Jithesh
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:40:28 -0700, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:28:44PM -0700, Jithesh AP wrote:
Thank you, this worked very well. I made it
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:28:44PM -0700, Jithesh AP wrote:
> Thank you, this worked very well. I made it empty as i was not sure what
> smarthost MTA meant.
>
> Another sideline question, is there a way to make it use port 587 instead of
> 25?
To make what "it" use port 587?
--
Viktor
Thank you, this worked very well. I made it empty as i was not sure what
smarthost MTA meant.
Another sideline question, is there a way to make it use port 587 instead
of 25?
Regards
Jithesh
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:54:16 -0700, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:43:08PM
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:43:08PM -0700, Jithesh AP wrote:
> relayhost = $mydomain
That's the cause of the loop. Eithet set this empty, or set it to
a suitable smarthost MTA, in the example below a hypothetical
"smarthost.example.com":
relayhost = [smarthost.example.com]
--
Vikto
l postfix/smtp[12355]: 4A8C8413E5:
to=, relay=ml.w8timez.com[54.183.241.239]:25,
delay=0.1, delays=0.02/0.01/0.08/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
w8timez.com loops back to myself)
Can someone help please, let me know what configs you need (i could
not attach, as i was getting rejected f
:
to=, relay=ml.w8timez.com[54.183.241.239]:25,
delay=0.1, delays=0.02/0.01/0.08/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
w8timez.com loops back to myself)
Can someone help please, let me know what configs you need (i could not
attach, as i was getting rejected from the mailer). I am new to MTA
Wietse wrote:
> In that case, arrange for whitelisting like ever legitimate sender does.
I do that for Gmail, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL .. and it works, so much
so that we have never been graylisted by any of those folks despite
the tens of thousands emails we send daily.
But I can't afford do that f
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:48:17PM +, MV wrote:
> > It is a program! Not a fixed mapping. It receives a sender address,
> > and replies (with a possibly cached per-sender) answer which is
> > computed on a mostly-round-robin basis.
>
> If that's not asking too much, could you please provide
MV:
> > Wietse:
> > What is the legitimate use case for this kind of policy evasion?
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not a spammer, if anything, I couldn't be more
> far from it.
> I'm in the business of (strictly subscription-only) "monitoring
> stuff". I mean, as soon as an event happens the subscribe
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> It is a program! Not a fixed mapping. It receives a sender address,
> and replies (with a possibly cached per-sender) answer which is
> computed on a mostly-round-robin basis.
If that's not asking too much, could you please provide me with a
practical example or point me
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:44:46PM +, MV wrote:
> > sender dependent maps would actually largely ignore the sender,
>
> But how to I define the sender (map), if that's not asking too much,
> could you please provide me with an example file?
It is a program! Not a fixed mapping. It receives
Viktor Dukhovni:
> Of course you can. You're just not listening carefully. Your
I'm failing to grasp the concept and can't find any working examples online...
Finding this thread
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/203958 has helped a
bit..
> sender dependent maps would actually larg
> Wietse:
> What is the legitimate use case for this kind of policy evasion?
Just to be clear, I'm not a spammer, if anything, I couldn't be more
far from it.
I'm in the business of (strictly subscription-only) "monitoring
stuff". I mean, as soon as an event happens the subscribers who signed
up t
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:23:39PM +, MV wrote:
> >Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > Furthermore, because "*" is cached, you really don't want to use
> > "*" at all for dynamic transport resolution.
> Thanks for your input RE the caching of the special pattern "*" results.
>
> > I answered your ques
MV:
> I don't want to use sender-based static "routes". I'm looking for
> a "random" or round-robin-ish split of smtp that provides consistent
> "helo .. hostname .. ip .. reverse-dns-lookup"
What is the legitimate use case for this kind of policy evasion?
Wietse
>Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Furthermore, because "*" is cached, you really don't want to use
> "*" at all for dynamic transport resolution.
Thanks for your input RE the caching of the special pattern "*" results.
> I answered your question upthread, use:
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 04:50:25PM +, MV wrote:
> Now going a step further, how can I split the "*" (all non-local)
> between smtpX and smtpY (without running multiple postfix instances) ?
> Something like ...
>
> mydomain.ltd:
> .mydomain.ltd :
> * smtpX
> *
>Wietse:
>> MV:
>> As far as I can tell, in my case since I'm using sing tcp-base tables
>> some look ups are not performed and that's fine. But there are no
>> mentions to the change in the order which patterns are checked.
>> So am I wrong to expect to see the logs showing "get bar
>> foreign.tl
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:04:34PM +, MV wrote:
> As far as I can tell, in my case since I'm using sing tcp-base tables
> some look ups are not performed and that's fine. But there are no
> mentions to the change in the order which patterns are checked.
> So am I wrong to expect to see the log
MV:
> As far as I can tell, in my case since I'm using sing tcp-base tables
> some look ups are not performed and that's fine. But there are no
> mentions to the change in the order which patterns are checked.
> So am I wrong to expect to see the logs showing "get bar
> foreign.tld" and "get foo
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> In other words, RTFM.
I'd love to say I haven't read the manual and thank you for pointing
it out to me, but my OCD is too damn high, so I always read manuals.
Unfortunately this time I can't quite get my head around it to figure
it out on my own how to correctly and sanel
MV:
> Also I've noticed that different queries are sent to the transport
> map. Looking at the logs I see that early on in the request the
> transport map is queried as follow
> get *
> get *
> get b...@foreign.tld
> get f...@mydomain.tld
>
> and I can't figure out what those two initial "get *" q
horts 0
Mar 26 18:58:11 mailer2 postfix/qmgr[22435]: 3fvJW60bZtzyg2: removed
Mar 26 18:58:11 mailer2 smtp-mx2/smtp[22450]: 3fvJW7374jzyg3:
to=, relay=none, delay=0.14, delays=0.1/0.01/0.03/0,
dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for MYDOMAIN.com loops back to myself)
Mar 26 18:58:11 mailer2 postfix/qmgr[2
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:58:16PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Don't use the smtp transport for local addresses.
To attempt to evade receiving system client controls by spreading
load over multiple local IPs use sender_dependent_default_transport_maps.
If all you want is round-robin of the IPs, w
ocal mail destined to foreign destinations.
>>> But it breaks the delivery of foreign mail destined to local
>>> destinations with the error "mail for example.com loops back to
>>> myself".
>>
>> Don't route LOCAL destinations to the "smtp&q
; >> But it breaks the delivery of foreign mail destined to local
> >> destinations with the error "mail for example.com loops back to
> >> myself".
> >
> > Don't route LOCAL destinations to the "smtp" delivery agent.
> > The SMT
> Noel Jones wrote:
> Don't use the smtp transport for local addresses.
And how would I do that? I mean how can I have custom smtp for REMOTE
deliveries and not breaking the LOCAL deliveries,
Marcus
it breaks the delivery of foreign mail destined to local
>> destinations with the error "mail for example.com loops back to
>> myself".
>
> Don't route LOCAL destinations to the "smtp" delivery agent.
> The SMTP client is for REMOTE deliveries.
I guess this should've been my initial question:
how can I add a transport to REMOTE deliveries only?
Marcus
On 3/26/2014 3:42 PM, MV wrote:
> Noel Jones wrote:
>> MV wrote:
>>>
>>> 1.1.1.1:smtpinet n - n - - smtpd
>>> -o myhostname=mx1.example.com
>>> -o smtp_helo_name=mx1.example.com
>>> -o smtp_bind_address=1.1.1.1
>>
>> You can't set "smtp" options within t
Noel Jones wrote:
> MV wrote:
>>
>> 1.1.1.1:smtpinet n - n - - smtpd
>> -o myhostname=mx1.example.com
>> -o smtp_helo_name=mx1.example.com
>> -o smtp_bind_address=1.1.1.1
>
> You can't set "smtp" options within the "smtpd" service.
smtp options won't aff
inations with the error "mail for example.com loops back to
> myself".
Don't route LOCAL destinations to the "smtp" delivery agent.
The SMTP client is for REMOTE deliveries.
Wietse
il destined to local
> destinations with the error "mail for example.com loops back to
> myself".
>
> Where's the place place to "plug" the custom service
> (postfix-smtp-roundrobin.pl)?
>
> # main.cf
> transport_maps = tcp:127.0.0.1:
>
t;mail for example.com loops back to
myself".
Where's the place place to "plug" the custom service
(postfix-smtp-roundrobin.pl)?
# main.cf
transport_maps = tcp:127.0.0.1:
# ---%<--
# master.cf
smtp unix - - n -
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:05:58AM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Feel Zhou skrev den 2013-04-23 07:26:
>
> >How can I reject these mail before it in the queue
>
> $ cat main.cf
> # in smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> ...
> check_sender_mx_access cidr:/etc/postfix/sender_mx_access
> ...
>
> $ c
Feel Zhou skrev den 2013-04-23 07:26:
How can I reject these mail before it in the queue
$ cat main.cf
# in smtpd_sender_restrictions =
...
check_sender_mx_access cidr:/etc/postfix/sender_mx_access
...
$ cat /etc/postfix/sender_mx_access
0.0.0.0/8 REJECT MX in IANA reserved network
127.0.0
07:51 MAILER-DAEMON
>(mail for uhb.com
> <http://uhb.com> loops back to myself)
> lon...@uhb.com
> <mailto:lon...@uhb.com>
> Then I found it's not a good mx recorder,
> uhb.com <http://uhb.com>.
Hello, my friend
This is tom, I'm sending my greeting from China
I got some problem, and need your help
This mail is in the queue, but I hold it,just like that
C94C6AC00D4!3372 Wed Apr 17 19:07:51 MAILER-DAEMON
(mail for uhb.com loops back to
m
>query = select forwards.destination,users.email from forwards,users where
>(forwards.user_id = users.id) and forwards.active and forwards.destination =
>'%s';
maayyyb because I was still selecting two fields ... *sigh* sorry.
o, it is a ISPConfig system to which we want to add a little kludge for a
migration.
The forward _sort_ of works, but every sender gets back a "#< #5.4.6 X-Postfix;
mail for test.domain.com loops back to myself> #SMTP#
And yes, it is the same machine that shuld handle the resulting addres
Hi, I'm trying to relay all mail for one domain "ourdomain.tld" from Postfix
running on port 2525 of one interface to another SMTP server running on port 25
of another interface on the same machine. Sadly, when a message is received for
that domain, we're getting a &quo
the fisrt one need to relay an email for the second one I get this
>>
>> smtp[4488]: 91F162240CB: to=, relay=none,
>> delay=0.08, delays=0.07/0.01/0/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
>> XX.XX.XX.XX loops back to myself)
>>
>> XX.XX.XX.XX is the second IP
>
, status=bounced (mail for
XX.XX.XX.XX loops back to myself)
XX.XX.XX.XX is the second IP
This is probably because the first postfix detect the second IP address.
How can I tell the fisrt postfix not to handle this IP ?
In my master .cf I have already forced the first IP by replacing all
smtp ..
by
Hello I have a server having 2 IP addresses running 2 postfix managing
different domains
When the fisrt one need to relay an email for the second one I get this
smtp[4488]: 91F162240CB: to=, relay=none,
delay=0.08, delays=0.07/0.01/0/0, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail for
XX.XX.XX.XX loops back
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
= delayed
Jun 17 18:36:00 mail:info postfix-dummy/smtp: postfix-dummy/smtp[4212]:
send attr reason = mail for 1.1.2.1 loops back to myself
Jun 17 18:36:00 mail:info postfix-dummy/smtp: postfix-dummy/smtp[4212]:
private/defer socket: wanted attribute: status
*** AVISO LEGAL
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. Thi
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
