On Thu, 14 Mar 2019, Ryan McClung via Exim-users wrote:
Unfortunately no one answered my initial question.
When trying to connect to the TLS required ports it simply times out. I
have the ports listening, the ports are not blocked by our firewall, and
yet nothing works. Any thoughts?
Can you
> On 14 Mar 2019, at 18:56, Ryan McClung via Exim-users
> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately no one answered my initial question.
>
> When trying to connect to the TLS required ports it simply times out.
When you changed 587 to not be tls_on_connect, did that affect your ability to
connect to that
Unfortunately no one answered my initial question.
When trying to connect to the TLS required ports it simply times out. I
have the ports listening, the ports are not blocked by our firewall, and
yet nothing works. Any thoughts?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:31 AM Christian Balzer via Exim-users <
On Tue, 05 Mar 2019 09:45:47 -0500 Bill Cole via Exim-users wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2019, at 9:10, Ryan McClung via Exim-users wrote:
>
> > Why use only 465 and not 587? Just curious there.
>
> Or why not every port between 400 and 1? :)
>
> The way daemons on ports 465 and 587 can be expected
Ryan McClung via Exim-users (Di 05 Mär 2019 15:16:16 CET):
> Update on this issue.
>
> I set 465 as the only TLS port. Time out is still occurring on 465. The
> openssl client is connecting successfully but testing with an mta testing
> tool like swaks times out.
>
What is the swaks command line
On 5 Mar 2019, at 9:10, Ryan McClung via Exim-users wrote:
Why use only 465 and not 587? Just curious there.
Or why not every port between 400 and 1? :)
The way daemons on ports 465 and 587 can be expected to behave are
defined in IETF RFCs 6409 and 8314. If you want your mail system to
Update on this issue.
I set 465 as the only TLS port. Time out is still occurring on 465. The
openssl client is connecting successfully but testing with an mta testing
tool like swaks times out.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:10 AM Ryan McClung wrote:
> Why use only 465 and not 587? Just curious
Why use only 465 and not 587? Just curious there.
As for the openssl client connection -- it has been timing out without any
response from the server. Can confirm this worked before upgrading.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 7:01 AM Graeme Fowler via Exim-users <
exim-users@exim.org> wrote:
> On 4 Mar
On 4 Mar 2019, at 18:49, Ryan McClung via Exim-users
wrote:
> daemon_smtp_ports = 25 : 465 : 587
> tls_on_connect_ports = 465 : 587
Port 587 is the submission port; it uses SMTP and STARTTLS rather than
tls-on-connect.
tls_on_connect_ports should *only* be 465.
For testing, use this:
Greetings,
Please see config below:
(Hidden sections are just LDAP queries)
### LDAP
###Default LDAP servers
ldap_default_servers =
#SEARCH MACROS
EXIM_DIR=/etc/exim
SYSTEM_ALIASES_FILE = /etc/aliases
BLACKHOLE =
INACTIVEDOMAINS =
USER_ALIASES =
USER_FORWARDS =
USER_HOST =
USERS =
Andrew Rosolino wrote:
Yeah the problem is I have over 160 websites mass e-mailing their meembers.
If a website with 50,000 members mass e-mail the first day there will be at
least 10,000 in the queue by the next morning and then a site with 30,000
e-mails and it piles on sometimes like that.
Ok we have a serious problem.. there is over 9,000 messages in the mail queue
and a lot of them are over 4 days old!! I dont understand why there is
messages over 4days in it because we have it set up like so.
delay_warning = 100d
queue_run_max = 15
deliver_queue_load_max = 5
auto_thaw = 1d
Andrew Rosolino wrote:
So it tried to send the message for 5 minutes and then timedout and kept the
message on the list? I am assuming it keeps trying to process these messages
and wasteing 5 minutes on each one.. why doesnt it just delete them if they
timeout.
Because the target host might
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 11:46:54AM -0700, Andrew Rosolino wrote:
Ok we have a serious problem.. there is over 9,000 messages in the mail queue
and a lot of them are over 4 days old!! I dont understand why there is
messages over 4days in it because we have it set up like so.
delay_warning
Jeff Lasman wrote:
I wrote previously, I have to get a handle on how DirectAdmin handles
the routing of the Spam. I believe this will work and I'll work on the
exim.conf file as soon as I hear from the folk at DirectAdmin.
What is DirectAdmin?
Not filtering for spam works for me. Sure I
On Monday 20 March 2006 05:31 am, listrcv wrote:
What is DirectAdmin?
I'm guessing this thread is now long enough to get a history lesson.
The thread was originally started by Bradley Walker, who uses an
exim.conf file with his DirectAdmin hosting control panel
(http://www.directadmin.com/).
Bradley Walker wrote:
(1) × [EMAIL PROTECTED] F= R=spamcheck_director T=spamcheck: Child
process of spamcheck transport returned 2 from command: /usr/sbin/exim
(preceded by transport filter timeout while writing to pipe)
Spamd may eat some gigs(!) of RAM (besides clamad), so the server gets
On 15/03/06, listrcv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bradley Walker wrote:
(1) × [EMAIL PROTECTED] F= R=spamcheck_director T=spamcheck: Child
process of spamcheck transport returned 2 from command: /usr/sbin/exim
(preceded by transport filter timeout while writing to pipe)
Spamd may eat some
Peter Bowyer wrote:
This will only help the OP if he moves away from his current
router/transport/spamc mechanism and starts to use the built-in
content scanning facilities.
Oh, sorry, that's true.
Well, then I recommend switching to the built-in scanning facilities first.
If that is out of
Bradley Walker wrote:
- In regards to the rulesets, this is where I'm quite a bit unfamiliar about
what truly is best. On one side I've been taught that the more stringent
If you have a default install of SA, you use the default rulesets, which
is ok I'd say (at least I am happy with them).
Jeff Lasman wrote:
That said, what I read seems to have boiled down to don't use spamd;
instead use SA-SpamAssassin.
I don't know what SA-SpamAssassin is, but using spamd is the most
efficient way of using SA (if one can use efficient and SA in the
same sentence at all). Recent versions of
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 03:12 pm, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Jeff Lasman wrote:
That said, what I read seems to have boiled down to don't use
spamd; instead use SA-SpamAssassin.
I don't know what SA-SpamAssassin is
Brain fart ... I mean SA-Exim.
Sorry. Thanks for bringing that to my
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 05:08 pm, I wrote:
Brain fart ... I mean SA-Exim.
Sorry. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
I just wanted to add that I thought SA-Exim ran instead of spamd.
I'll keep working smile.
Thanks.
Jeff
--
Jeff Lasman, Nobaloney Internet Services
1254 So
was without hunting down in my 1.5gb size log.
-Original Message-
From: Jakob Hirsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: exim-users@exim.org
Subject: Re: [exim] Exim timeout?
Bradley Walker wrote:
- In regards to the rulesets
Does anyone know if Exim has some sort of built in timeout feature that can
be changed somewhere?? The reason I ask is that yesterday after spending
time on the SpamAssassin mailing list, they suggested I check to see if Exim
had a timeout feature.
All of this goes back to the continuous
On 14/03/2006 16:37, Bradley Walker wrote:
snip
(1) × [EMAIL PROTECTED] F= R=spamcheck_director T=spamcheck: Child
process of spamcheck transport returned 2 from command: /usr/sbin/exim
(preceded by transport filter timeout while writing to pipe)
transport filter timeout... there's your clue.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006, Bradley Walker wrote:
Does anyone know if Exim has some sort of built in timeout feature that can
be changed somewhere?? The reason I ask is that yesterday after spending
time on the SpamAssassin mailing list, they suggested I check to see if Exim
had a timeout feature.
Bradley Walker wrote:
I posted this to the SpamAssassin mailing list and they suggested that it
would be an Exim problem, due to SpamAssassin child process possibly taking
a few minutes to run various spamtests on it, but Exim times out waiting for
the message to come back, kills the SA child
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: exim-users@exim.org
Subject: Re: [exim] Exim timeout?
Bradley Walker wrote:
I posted this to the SpamAssassin mailing list and they suggested that
it would be an Exim problem, due to SpamAssassin child process
possibly taking a few minutes to run various spamtests
Bradley Walker wrote:
I didn't ignore your first message, in fact I read it, have it archived in a
folder here to continue to try and discern helpful information from. Being
I'm working 14-17 hours a day as a business owner, replies sometimes can't
always come in due time.
Sorry if I seemed
On Tuesday 14 March 2006 11:01 am, Bradley Walker wrote:
Anyway I am currently running Jeff Lasman's spamblocker
Mentioning my name in vain again, are we smile...
Well, not in vain this time.
I too read all the previous responses, and I can read them again any
time I want because I keep my
7:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: exim-users@exim.org
Subject: Re: [exim] Exim timeout?
Bradley Walker wrote:
I didn't ignore your first message, in fact I read it, have it
archived in a folder here to continue to try and discern helpful
information from. Being I'm working 14-17 hours a day
32 matches
Mail list logo
