On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:33:49 +0200, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> Am 28.07.2012 20:03, schrieb Mark Alan:
> >> The solution is to exempt traffic sent from the machine from the
> >> rate controls.
> >
> > In 2012, in a server facing the net and running other services
> > besides mail, I would not call i
Am 29.07.2012 11:48, schrieb Mark Alan:
>> if you do not trust you OUTGOING traffic the only valid
>> reason is that you doubt your machine is comprimised
>
> [The problem, as said in another email, is (mostly) solved]
>
> - I do not trust anything connected 24h to the Internet
then shut it do
Hello again,
I apologize that in my previous message I didn't provide additional
informations. I was hoping to be a trivial problem(and it was), so it
doesn't need too much to be solved.
I've solved the problem after sending my first post. It was in main.cf, the
following statement:
smtpd_sasl_exc
Gmail-teopro:
> Hello again,
> I apologize that in my previous message I didn't provide additional
> informations. I was hoping to be a trivial problem(and it was), so it
> doesn't need too much to be solved.
No-one answered because there are about a dozen Postfix features
that may be set wrong (e
Hello again. About one month later I decided to make a clean Debian 6 install.
This time I did'nt do much modification to the system. Only installed OS and
ehcp control panel.
But the new installation suffers the same problem, I cannot send mail ( no
route to host error). Before clean install I
Am 29.07.2012 22:32, schrieb Engin qwert:
> Hello again. About one month later I decided to make a clean Debian 6
> install. This time I did'nt do much
> modification to the system. Only installed OS and ehcp control panel.
>
> But the new installation suffers the same problem, I cannot send ma
Den 2012-07-29 22:32, Engin qwert skrev:
The ISP still claims they are not blocking any port. Any help would
be
apprecriated. Thanks :)
show postconf -n to resolve this problem if you belive postfix users
care of no spam to maillist with no route to host :=)
you already reinstalled debian,
Hey, :) I am sorry not sending the output message in advance. Should I also
send all my configuration files regarding to networking such as
/etc/networking/interfaces?
I also tested my ip address from canyouseeme.org and the test result is "Your
ISP is not blocking your port 25", this informat
On Jul 29, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Engin qwert wrote:
> But the new installation suffers the same problem, I cannot send mail ( no
> route to host error).
That means … that the server is attempting to get to a host IP address that
doesn't exist.
Somehow, I suspect this isn't as such a Postfix proble
Hello, sorry for sending too many information which may be irrelevant but I
want to post anything I think it causes the problem.
-Hostname:
xn--hadibakalm-5ub.comThe Static IP, that ISP provided me is :
31.44.198.247.The internal IP a
On Jul 29, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Engin qwert wrote:
> Hello, sorry for sending too many information which may be irrelevant but I
> want to post anything I think it causes the problem.
220 xn--hadibakalm-5ub ESMTP Postfix powered by Easy Hosting Control Panel
(ehcp) on Ubuntu, www.ehcp.net
Well,
Michael J Wise:
>
> On Jul 29, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Engin qwert wrote:
>
> > Hello, sorry for sending too many information which may be irrelevant but
> > I want to post anything I think it causes the problem.
>
> 220 xn--hadibakalm-5ub ESMTP Postfix powered by Easy Hosting Control Panel
> (ehcp
Yes, I can receive mails :) I also want to add an additional information that.
"On the server machine I can reach the internet. (web browsing, can ping
hotmail etc.)"
> Subject: Re: no route to host
> From: mjw...@kapu.net
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:08:25 -0700
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
On Jul 29, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Engin qwert wrote:
> transport_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virtual_transports.cf
… any from other logs, yer MySQL is pooched in some way.
I think I see the problem.
I have no idea how to fix it, sorry.
Aloha,
Michael.
--
"Please have your Internet Licens
Hi there,
Could you please tried to use the command "nslookup" or "dig" to get the
mail handlers and then use "telnet" to test one of the mail handlers at port
25? I think it os necessary to check whether the problem is happening as a mail
routing issue or a host routing issue. Also,please c
Just comment the transport field and reload your postfix before you are going
to re-do the test!
LittleCho@My Xperia
Michael J Wise 提到：
>
>On Jul 29, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Engin qwert wrote:
>
>> transport_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virtual_transports.cf
>
>… any from other logs, yer My
Engin qwert:
> Yes, I can receive mails :) I also want to add an additional information
> that. "On the server machine I can reach the internet. (web browsing, can
> ping hotmail etc.)"
>
What happens when you type this command on the server with the problem:
telnet 168.100.189.2 25
That
The nmap program outputs the result below.
root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# nmap -p 25
hotmail.com---Starting Nmap 5.00 (
http://nmap.org ) at 2012-07-30 01:27 EESTWarning: Hostname hotmail.com
resolves to 4 IPs. Using 65.55.72.183.Interesting ports on
origin
root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# telnet 168.100.189.2 25Trying
168.100.189.2...telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
> Subject: Re: no route to host
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:30:20 -0400
> From: wie...@porcupine.org
>
> Engin qwert:
> > Yes, I ca
If the problem cannot resolved I will re run the echp script. It may solve the
mysql problem.
> Subject: Re: no route to host
> From: mjw...@kapu.net
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:25:27 -0700
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Engin qwert wrote:
>
> > transport_m
root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# nslookup hotmail.comServer:
195.175.39.39Address: 195.175.39.39#53
Non-authoritative answer:Name: hotmail.comAddress: 65.55.72.167Name:
hotmail.comAddress: 65.55.72.183Name: hotmail.comAddress: 65.55.72.135Name:
hotmail.comAddress: 65.55.72.151
> Da
I commented the line you told. It did'nt changed the result.
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:29:54 +0800
> Subject: 回覆： Re: no route to host
> From: little...@tcssh.tc.edu.tw
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org; mjw...@kapu.net
>
> Just comment the transport field and reload your postfix before you ar
update: interesting, header_check gives 5xx but user unknown gives
correct 4xx response:
Jul 30 01:49:01 mailhost postfix-in/smtpd[3685]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from relay3.isp.ro[IP_ADDR]: 450 4.1.1 :
Recipient address rejected: User unknown;
from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
What is the output from the command
traceroute -T -p 25 168.100.189.2
On 29/07/2012 23:47, Engin qwert wrote:
> root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# nslookup hotmail.com
> Server:195.175.39.39
> Address:195.175.39.39#53
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name:hotmail.com
> Address: 65.55.72.167
> Name:hotmai
root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# traceroute -T -p 25 168.100.189.2 traceroute to
168.100.189.2 (168.100.189.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 10.138.9.254
(10.138.9.254) 39.993 ms !X * *
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:55:06 +0100
From: p...@netpresto.co.uk
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: 回覆：
And now
traceroute -T -p 80 168.100.189.2
and
traceroute -T -p 587 168.100.189.2
On 29/07/2012 23:57, Engin qwert wrote:
> root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# traceroute -T -p 25 168.100.189.2
> traceroute to 168.100.189.2 (168.100.189.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 10.138.9.254 (10.138.9.254) 3
The first command is
root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# traceroute -T -p 25 168.100.189.2 traceroute to
168.100.189.2 (168.100.189.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 10.138.9.254
(10.138.9.254) 39.993 ms !X * *root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# traceroute -T -p 80
168.100.189.2traceroute to 168.100.189.2 (16
In my opinion TCP port 25 (smtp) is being blocked by either
your router or the upstream provider
On 30/07/2012 00:06, Engin qwert wrote:
> The first command is
>
> root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# traceroute -T -p 25 168.100.189.2
> traceroute to 168.100.189.2 (168.100.189.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packet
It seems you are on a home internet line with outbound 25 blocked except to
your isp mail gateways.
BlackBerry PIN 280C6BCD +1 647 459 9475
-Original Message-
From: Paul Enlund
Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:13:55
To:
Subject: Re: 回覆： Re: no route t
My router don't even have any configuration interface it is hard to be blocked
from router. In this situation the upstream provider may be. But I want to
repeat again that. Before making a clean install, I could send mail from
outside the server. For example.
Client(Icedove program pointing to
a mail-client is usually configured to use port 587 (submissionn)
and not 25 (smtp) becuase 25 is for server-to-server communication
and blocking port 25 outgoing from home-users is a good weapon
to block their spam-bots
Am 30.07.2012 01:22, schrieb Engin qwert:
> My router don't even have any con
Engin qwert:
> root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# telnet 168.100.189.2 25Trying
> 168.100.189.2...telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
Then your ISP is blocking your outbound SMTP connections.
I was able to connect to your server's SMTP port from 168.100.189.2
(you should see that
Am 30.07.2012 01:29, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Engin qwert:
>> root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# telnet 168.100.189.2 25Trying
>> 168.100.189.2...telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
>
> Then your ISP is blocking your outbound SMTP connections.
as said a month ago
Origi
Thank you all clarifiyng that my ISP is blocking port 25. This way I can insist
that they are blocking port 25. Due to my weak knowledge I had to accept what
they claimed that it is not blocked.
> Subject: Re: no route to host
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:29:10
before you insist make sure that you are allowed to
run a server and that your NAT-gateway is not broken
> The internal IP address of the Server PC: 10.138.9.201
says there is a NAT-router in front of your box
Am 30.07.2012 01:36, schrieb Engin qwert:
> Thank you all clarifiyng that my ISP is b
Reindl Harald:
> before you insist make sure that you are allowed to
> run a server and that your NAT-gateway is not broken
>
> > The internal IP address of the Server PC: 10.138.9.201
>
> says there is a NAT-router in front of your box
Reindl has a good point. If the NAT router maps only inboun
>
> as said a month ago
>
> Original-Nachricht
> Betreff: Re: "no route to host" error message
> Datum: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:58:06 +0200
> Von: Reindl Harald
> Organisation: the lounge interactive design
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
>
> BOAH DO NOT SWITCH TO TOP-POSTING
>
> before you insist make sure that you are allowed to
> run a server and that your NAT-gateway is not broken
>
> > The internal IP address of the Server PC: 10.138.9.201
>
> says there is a NAT-router in front of your box
>
>
Actually it is not router. It is only BPL modem. After Static IP
I think my ISP won't care my situation. Changing it may be better.
But now I 've left with configuration that even cannot send mail even
outside the network :(
Does your ISP provide you with a mail gateway address to use ?
> Does your ISP provide you with a mail gateway address to use ?
>
>They did'nt informed me such an aspect. But I don't think they will. They are
>still claiming that they are not blocking any port so in this point of view
>they would not give any gateway address I believe.
Am 30.07.2012 01:57, schrieb Engin qwert:
>
>> before you insist make sure that you are allowed to
>> run a server and that your NAT-gateway is not broken
>>
>> > The internal IP address of the Server PC: 10.138.9.201
>>
>> says there is a NAT-router in front of your box
>>
>>
>
> Actually it
On 30/07/2012 01:02, Engin qwert wrote:
> Does your ISP provide you with a mail gateway address to use ?
>
>
They did'nt informed me such an aspect. But I don't think they will.
They are still claiming that they are not blocking any port so in this
point of view they would not give any gateway
> call it how you like
>
> it is a device making NAt because you machines address is
> a local one and not your public and if this thing has a
> however broken setup it may be the root-cause
>
Ok. Sorry for my weak knowledge. The modem is actually provided by the ISP in
this situation modem or
>What output do you get from the command
root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# telnet 10.138.9.254 25 Trying 10.138.9.254...telnet:
Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Den 2012-07-30 00:20, Wietse Venema skrev:
Confirmed. Inbound SMTP connectivity appears to work. You may need
a network sniffer to find out why outbound SMTP fails.
are syslog not working ?
Den 2012-07-30 00:43, Engin qwert skrev:
root@xn--hadibakalm-5ub:~# telnet 168.100.189.2 25
Trying 168.100.189.2...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
firewalled ?
netstat -nr
ip route show
ip addr show
if more help is needed
Den 2012-07-30 01:36, Reindl Harald skrev:
no, so call your ISP and scream loud in the phone
or just ask for there relayhostname, so if there users is spamming
wild, there ip ends up in global blacklists :)
Den 2012-07-30 01:46, Reindl Harald skrev:
The internal IP address of the Server PC: 10.138.9.201
says there is a NAT-router in front of your box
so the wan ip is ?, add proxyhost in main.cf now
Den 2012-07-30 01:49, Engin qwert skrev:
I think my ISP won't care my situation. Changing it may be better.
ask for a better router ?
or just ignore there problem and run your own router with linux
But now I 've left with configuration that even cannot send mail even
outside the network :(
Den 2012-07-30 01:57, Engin qwert skrev:
Actually it is not router. It is only BPL modem. After Static IP
hiring the ISP send me an email how to configure the server with this
IP addresses information. The 10.138.9.201 internal IP address
selection was not made by myself.
ask isp if this shit
Hi all,
I am having a very difficult time getting
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps to actually work as
described.
I have a simple postfix 2.9.3 server with 2 IP addresses. I want all
mail sent from a sender address of *@example1 to go through 1.1.1.1,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 08:26:24PM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
[ No HTML posts, please! ]
> /@domain2\.com$/ 1.1.1.2:smtp:
Why do you believe this is the correct syntax? The transport(5)
documentation specifies:
transport:nexthop
not
nexthop:transport
--
Viktor.
Hi Viktor,
I have been following (or attempting to follow) these two sites I found
that showed how to set this up. They both show domain then transport:
http://www.ericmichaelstone.com/?p=5359
http://www.zoobey.com/index.php/resources/all-articles-list/210-postfix-outbound-mail-router-by-domai
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:30:51AM -0500, Russell Jones wrote:
> I have been following (or attempting to follow) these two sites I
> found that showed how to set this up. They both show domain then
> transport:
I don't see this at either site. All I found was "transport:",
with custom transport n
54 matches
Mail list logo
