Generic Maps and relay issue

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Generic Maps and relay issue

Nick Lunt-3

Hi,

 

postfix-2.2.10-1.2.1.el4_7

Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 5)

2.6.9-42.ELsmp

 

postconf -n

alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases

alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases

command_directory = /usr/sbin

config_directory = /etc/postfix

daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix

debug_peer_level = 2

html_directory = no

inet_interfaces = localhost

mail_owner = postfix

mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq.postfix

manpage_directory = /usr/share/man

mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost

newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases.postfix

queue_directory = /var/spool/postfix

readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.2.10/README_FILES

relayhost = [a.b.c.d]

sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.2.10/samples

sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix

setgid_group = postdrop

smtp_generic_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/generic

unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550

 

I have setup smtp_generic_maps on the postfix server, it simply relays through a.b.c.d however this relay will only accept mail from a specific domain (call it xyz.com). Here is my smtp_generic_maps

 

[hidden email]  [hidden email]

 

However I am still not receiving emails.

 

I have set this up the same on a different system and it works as expected. I can see that on the successful system postfix relays via 127.0.0.1 first from maillog, but on the unsuccessful system postfix relays directly via the relayhost. This makes me think it's possible that because the failing system is relaying directly via the relayhost (well at least theres not mention of localhost in maillog) that the address masquerading is not taking place.

 

I do not have access to the next relay server to check the logs unfortunately.

 

Can anyone see anything particularly dumb that I'm doing here please ?

 

Thanks

Nick.

 

 

 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4492 (20091009) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generic Maps and relay issue

Stan Hoeppner
Nick Lunt put forth on 10/9/2009 3:03 AM:

> postfix-2.2.10-1.2.1.el4_7
>
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 5)
>
> 2.6.9-42.ELsmp

Sorry, I don't have your answer.  I'm sure someone else will get you
going.  However, may I humbly suggest you consider upgrading?  The
version of Postfix you're running is over 3 years old and, from what I
understand, no longer supported.

--
Stan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generic Maps and relay issue

Victor Duchovni
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 05:42:34AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

> Nick Lunt put forth on 10/9/2009 3:03 AM:
>
> > postfix-2.2.10-1.2.1.el4_7
> >
> > Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 5)
> >
> > 2.6.9-42.ELsmp
>
> Sorry, I don't have your answer.  I'm sure someone else will get you
> going.  However, may I humbly suggest you consider upgrading?  The
> version of Postfix you're running is over 3 years old and, from what I
> understand, no longer supported.

Indeed, 2.2 is not supported, and the first reasonably feature-complete
Postfix was 2.3, incremental progress since then, with significant
changes mostly in milter support. So, 2.3 is still a reasonably
"modern" Postfix, but 2.2 is too old for use with *new* requirements.

Of course if you have a working 2.2 system with a stable configuration,
and modest feature requirements, by all means feel free to continue
to use it. Postfix does not *force* upgrades on users whose needs don't
change.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[hidden email]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Generic Maps and relay issue

Nick Lunt-3
 

> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 05:42:34AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> > Nick Lunt put forth on 10/9/2009 3:03 AM:
> >
> > > postfix-2.2.10-1.2.1.el4_7
> > >
> > > Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 5)
> > >
> > > 2.6.9-42.ELsmp
> >
> > Sorry, I don't have your answer.  I'm sure someone else will get you
> > going.  However, may I humbly suggest you consider upgrading?  The
> > version of Postfix you're running is over 3 years old and, from what
> I
> > understand, no longer supported.
>
> Indeed, 2.2 is not supported, and the first reasonably
feature-complete
> Postfix was 2.3, incremental progress since then, with significant
> changes mostly in milter support. So, 2.3 is still a reasonably
> "modern" Postfix, but 2.2 is too old for use with *new* requirements.
>
> Of course if you have a working 2.2 system with a stable
configuration,
> and modest feature requirements, by all means feel free to continue
> to use it. Postfix does not *force* upgrades on users whose needs
don't
> change.
>
> --
> Viktor.

Hi

the latest version from Red Hat is 2.3 which I cannot upgrade to -

# rpm -Uvh /tmp/postfix-2.3.3-2.i386.rpm
warning: /tmp/postfix-2.3.3-2.i386.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID
37017186
error: Failed dependencies:
        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) is needed by postfix-2.3.3-2.i386
        libcrypto.so.6 is needed by postfix-2.3.3-2.i386
        libdb-4.3.so is needed by postfix-2.3.3-2.i386
        liblber-2.3.so.0 is needed by postfix-2.3.3-2.i386
        libldap-2.3.so.0 is needed by postfix-2.3.3-2.i386
        libssl.so.6 is needed by postfix-2.3.3-2.i386
        rtld(GNU_HASH) is needed by postfix-2.3.3-2.i386

I cannot update these packages as this is a production Oracle system for
a client.

The only feature I want to use is smtp_generic_maps. It works on one
server but not on another (or it may on the other but I cannot check the
clients relay server).

One difference I can see is on the server where I do receive the email,
the mail -v command connects first to the localhost:

# echo x | mail -v -s x2 [hidden email]
[hidden email]... Connecting to [127.0.0.1] via relay...
 
I receive the email with the masqueraded 'from' address. All is good.

However on the server where I don't receive the email the mail -v
command connects straight to the defined relayhost straight away and
does not connect to localhost first.

Which one is correct ?

On both servers the relayhost is defined as the next relay server. If
the mail command shows that the mail is going straight to the relayhost
(and not localhost) does smtp_generic_maps still work ?

Many thanks,
Nick.


 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4498 (20091011) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Generic Maps and relay issue

Wietse Venema
Nick Lunt:
> # echo x | mail -v -s x2 [hidden email]
> [hidden email]... Connecting to [127.0.0.1] via relay...

That is not Postfix.

Postfix never delivers mail directly to a network daemon.  Instead,
Postfix always deposits the message in a file in /var/spool/postfix/maildrop.

        Wietse