Brian writes:
> On Tue 21 Oct 2014 at 22:54:19 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Brian writes:
>>
>> >> On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At least they are supporting others in breaking RFCs, and I wonder how
>> >> that could not be against their own interests. In any case, it
On Tue 21 Oct 2014 at 22:54:19 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> >> On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote:
> >>
> >> At least they are supporting others in breaking RFCs, and I wonder how
> >> that could not be against their own interests. In any case, it
> >> classifies them as (
On Mon 20 Oct 2014 at 21:19:05 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> > [I may be misunderstanding how your mail system works but your Date:
> > header doesn't look right]
> >
> >
> > On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 00:53:44 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >> Brian writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:15
Brian writes:
>> On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote:
>>
>> At least they are supporting others in breaking RFCs, and I wonder how
>> that could not be against their own interests. In any case, it
>> classifies them as (at least potentially very) unreliable.
>
> This is first time I'
Brian writes:
> [I may be misunderstanding how your mail system works but your Date:
> header doesn't look right]
>
>
> On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 00:53:44 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Brian writes:
>>
>> > On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:15:49 +0200, lee wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is no mentioning of /etc/mailname
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:37:13 +0100
Brian wrote:
>
> primary_hostname is used as the HELO but Debian doesn't set it. Also,
> the exim maintainers aren't very keen on your using it in a
> configuration file.
>
>
Many mail servers have a public IP address, and it makes sense to use
the machine'
On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 01:19:51 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> >> > An address literal is not the same as an IP address. An MTA should not
> >> > be rejecting mail on the basis that the HELO is an address literal.
> >>
> >> Oh, then what is it?
> >
> > Using an example from RFC5321, an ad
[I may be misunderstanding how your mail system works but your Date:
header doesn't look right]
On Sun 19 Oct 2014 at 00:53:44 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> > On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:15:49 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >> There is no mentioning of /etc/mailname here. Perhaps that's an
> >>
Brian writes:
>> > An address literal is not the same as an IP address. An MTA should not
>> > be rejecting mail on the basis that the HELO is an address literal.
>>
>> Oh, then what is it?
>
> Using an example from RFC5321, an address literal is [123.255.37.2]. An
> IP address would presumably
Joe writes:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:13:54 +0100
> Brian wrote:
>
>> On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:20:44 +0200, lee wrote:
>>
>> > Brian writes:
>> >
>> > > Not that I'm suggesting setting up exim to offer an invalid HELO;
>> > > it will lead to trouble sooner or later. However, as a reason for
>>
Brian writes:
> On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:15:49 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Brian writes:
>>
>> > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:12:04 +0200, lee wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jonathan Dowland writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> >> >> > And if so, is that not acquir
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:13:54 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:20:44 +0200, lee wrote:
>
> > Brian writes:
> >
> > > Not that I'm suggesting setting up exim to offer an invalid HELO;
> > > it will lead to trouble sooner or later. However, as a reason for
> > > mail being rejected o
On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:20:44 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> > Not that I'm suggesting setting up exim to offer an invalid HELO; it
> > will lead to trouble sooner or later. However, as a reason for mail
> > being rejected or not arriving it doesn't come top of the list.
>
> Not accepti
On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:18:14 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >> Harry Putnam writes:
> >>
> >> > lee writes:
> >> >
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the tips.
> >> >
> >> >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
> >> >
> >> >> That's an inva
On Fri 17 Oct 2014 at 03:15:49 +0200, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
> > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:12:04 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >> Jonathan Dowland writes:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >> >> > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
> >> >
Brian writes:
> On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Harry Putnam writes:
>>
>> > lee writes:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Thanks for the tips.
>> >
>> >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
>> >
>> >> That's an invalid helo string.
>> >
>> > Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn?
>>
>>
Brian writes:
> On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:12:04 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Dowland writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> >> > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
>> > snip
>> >> Egad ... I just noticed that was from a different machin
Brian writes:
> Not that I'm suggesting setting up exim to offer an invalid HELO; it
> will lead to trouble sooner or later. However, as a reason for mail
> being rejected or not arriving it doesn't come top of the list.
Not accepting invalid HELOs is pretty high on the list because it's a
very
On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 08:31:38 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 5:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >> Harry Putnam writes:
> >>
> >>> lee writes:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the tips.
> >>>
> > SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
> >>>
>
On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 10:51:51 +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:25:37 +0100
> Brian wrote:
>
> > On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> > > Harry Putnam writes:
> > >
> > > > lee writes:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the tips.
> > > >
> > > >>>
On 10/13/2014 5:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Harry Putnam writes:
>>
>>> lee writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Thanks for the tips.
>>>
> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
>>>
That's an invalid helo string.
>>>
>>> Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:26:02 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:12:04 +0200, lee wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Dowland writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> > >> > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
> > > snip
> > >> Egad ... I just
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:25:37 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
>
> > Harry Putnam writes:
> >
> > > lee writes:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Thanks for the tips.
> > >
> > >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
> > >
> > >> That's an invalid helo string.
> > >
> > > Is a
On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:12:04 +0200, lee wrote:
> Jonathan Dowland writes:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >> > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
> > snip
> >> Egad ... I just noticed that was from a different machine... but the
> >> format
On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
> Harry Putnam writes:
>
> > lee writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Thanks for the tips.
> >
> >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
> >
> >> That's an invalid helo string.
> >
> > Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn?
>
> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf
On Sun 12 Oct 2014 at 15:42:49 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Jonathan Dowland writes:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >> > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
> > snip
> >> Egad ... I just noticed that was from a different machine... but the
> >
Harry Putnam writes:
> lee writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the tips.
>
>>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
>
>> That's an invalid helo string.
>
> Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn?
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821#section-4.1.1.1
It says to either use the fqdn or, if not possible, an IP
Harry Putnam writes:
> Martin Read writes:
>
>> On 12/10/14 14:52, lee wrote:
>>> Harry Putnam writes:
>>>
Can any of you experienced exim4 hands interpret this output?
>>>
>>> Reading RFC-821 would tell you more.
>>
>> Reading RFC 2821 would be even better, since RFC 821 is obsoleted by
>
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
> snip
>> Egad ... I just noticed that was from a different machine... but the
>> format is the same on all of mine. So still should stand as something
On Sun 12 Oct 2014 at 14:45:44 -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Harry Putnam writes:
>
> > lee writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Thanks for the tips.
> >
> >>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
> >
> >> That's an invalid helo string.
> >
> > Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn?
> >
> > And if so, is that not
On Sun 12 Oct 2014 at 19:56:08 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> > > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
> snip
> > Egad ... I just noticed that was from a different machine... but the
> > format is the same on all of min
Joe writes:
[...]
>> (I'm not sure if this output means it worked or it failed. I can tell
>> you that nothing is showing up at the other end)
>>
>> Can any of you experienced exim4 hands interpret this output?
>> Did the Authentication work or fail?
>
> The message was transmitted and accepte
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 19:18:33 -0400
Harry Putnam wrote:
Sorry, I missed this thread originally.
>
> (I'm not sure if this output means it worked or it failed. I can tell
> you that nothing is showing up at the other end)
>
> Can any of you experienced exim4 hands interpret this output?
> Did t
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:45:44PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote:
> > And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
snip
> Egad ... I just noticed that was from a different machine... but the
> format is the same on all of mine. So still should stand as something
> to critique/
Debian's exim4 wil
Harry Putnam writes:
> lee writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the tips.
>
>>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
>
>> That's an invalid helo string.
>
> Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn?
>
> And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
>
> /etc/hosts
>
> 127.0.0.1dv.local.lan dvl
Martin Read writes:
> On 12/10/14 14:52, lee wrote:
>> Harry Putnam writes:
>>
>>> Can any of you experienced exim4 hands interpret this output?
>>
>> Reading RFC-821 would tell you more.
>
> Reading RFC 2821 would be even better, since RFC 821 is obsoleted by
> RFC 2821.
Thanks.
I pounded thr
lee writes:
I accidentally let my prior response get away before I remembered to
ask these questions.
[...]
>> LOG: MAIN
>> <= ha...@2xd.local.lan U=harry P=local S=569
>> $ delivering 1Xauru-0003TT-Fh
>> R: smarthost for rea...@newsguy.com
>> T: remote_smtp_smarthost for rea...@newsguy.com
lee writes:
[...]
Thanks for the tips.
>> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
> That's an invalid helo string.
Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn?
And if so, is that not acquired from /etc/hosts?
/etc/hosts
127.0.0.1dv.local.lan dvlocalhost
10.0.0.9 dv.local.lan dv
On 12/10/14 14:52, lee wrote:
Harry Putnam writes:
Can any of you experienced exim4 hands interpret this output?
Reading RFC-821 would tell you more.
Reading RFC 2821 would be even better, since RFC 821 is obsoleted by RFC
2821.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.deb
Harry Putnam writes:
> Can any of you experienced exim4 hands interpret this output?
Reading RFC-821 would tell you more.
> Did the Authentication work or fail?
>
> [NOTE: Just for the information, my lan is a fake one 2xd.{local.lan} was
> just invented right
> out of thin air some yrs ago]
>
Setup: jessie 64 bit
Freshly configured exim4
I'm quite new to exim4 although I've had it running on another Debian
install for few months now. At any rate I'm not experienced enough to
know how to find the source of a problem once I've gotten to the point
where I'm attempting to send mail.
Watc
41 matches
Mail list logo
