Hello Glenn, The odds of the reporting system are not of my fully knowledge, I just know how and what mails go from where to who.
Imagine that a script on a reporting machine does this: # mailx -s ERROR_FOUND_IN_PROC_SYNC syncproj It will try to deliver the mail locally, as suposed to. If I define a central hub or a Smart host it will deliver the mail I exampled to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it works fine. The problem is that it won't lookup the mailhub MX record, It will send it directly to mailhub:25. Now imagine that mailhub is down? There is a backup server listed as an MX record for the mailhub domain with a higher pref that would take the work while mailhub prefered MX is down. I've been reading a little more and I think there is some kind of feature/option that force a MX lookup on the mailhub host. Thank you On 7/29/05, Glenn Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:30 AM 7/29/2005, you wrote: > >Hello, > > > >Thanks for the help. > > > >The thing is that our main mailserver is not able to work with reports > >from only one address. It has a db with some "names" that match > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and then send the reports to the respective > >persons/mailing lists. > >So the basics of the question is: Is it possible to get every mail > >(including local mail) redirected to one domain with MX lookup? I've > >been reading about LUSER_RELAY, LOCAL_RELAY, stickyhost, but I don't > >know if this will solve the problem. > > ok, lets see if I understand this correctly... > > You have an existing mail server that handles mail for you local network. > Some of the mail sent to that server is compared to a database which has > entries that look like [EMAIL PROTECTED] If a match is found, > the message is redistributed to some list of email addresses. So far so > good? hope so... > > The addresses that are looked at for a match, are they the from address or > the to address? > > For example, I send an email to you mail server using the address > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since I sent the email, it looks like it came from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] One of those two addresses are compared to a > database to decide what to do with the message. From your description, it > sounds like the To: address is the one being looked at by the mail server. > > "Local" mail is normally considered to be mail between two addresses which > are on the same machine. The from and to addresses for the local mail can > have only account names, or, one or both could have a domain associated > with it. Potentially, mail between the following pairs of addresses could > all be local: > > From: To: > foo bar > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bar > foo [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From your description above, it sounds like you're looking at mail that is > always delivered to the same address on the mail server, and then you're > using the address the mail was from to decide what to do with it. Is that > correct? > > From the description below (from the original email) it sounds like the > scripts in question are running on machines that are not the mail server, > and they're only specifying the username to deliver to, and not adding any > domain name or hostname to the recipient. Depending on what else is > happening on the machines that have the scripts that generate the mail, it > sounds like building a null client is probably the simplest thing to > do. Other options are using some of the masquerading features, or by using > LOCAL_RELAY to force unqualified names to be send to a central server which > will figure out what to do with them. > > Hope some of that helps...Let me know if I can clarify anything, I'll be > around for at least another few hours... > > -Glenn > > > >On 7/28/05, Glenn Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 03:17 PM 7/28/2005, Alexandre Vieira wrote: > > > >Hello folks, > > > > > > > >I'm trying to get past a standard in sendmail which is very simple. > > > > > > > >I have several machines reporting mails trough local MTA's (sendmail) > > > >in each one of the boxes to our main mailserver. The thing is, I did > > > >not developed the scripts and they are using "mailx -s <subj> user" > > > >which normally would try to deliver it to a local account in the > > > >machine. So the question is: Can I, in any way, define that every > > > >"user" passed on the mailx in every script gets resolved to > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and not to a local system account? We have > > > >hundreds of "names" in the scripts, so aliasing doesn't work for me. > > > > > > If you don't _ever_ want things to be delivered locally, you can create > > > what sendmail calls a null client. That will send all mail to the address > > > you specify. You can get more details from /usr/share/sendmail/cf/README > > > > > > -Glenn > > > > > > > > > >My current hack is defining DR and DS in the sendmail.cf to a static > > > >hostname but that takes redundancy to our mail system since if the > > > >main mailserver is down the backup mail server (higher MX) won't take > > > >any effect. > > > > > > > >Any help apreciated > > > >Cheers > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > > > > > > >Thanks > >_______________________________________________ > >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > -- Alexandre Vieira - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"