On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:28AM -0400, Jan Knepper wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Yes. You've omitted some of the log entries. A mail delivery starts with:
> >
> > new msg ...
> > info msg ...
>
> Sep 27 00:00:00 digitaldaemon newsyslog[7108]: logfile turned over
> Sep 27 00:01:29 digitaldaemon qmail: 970027289.502439 new msg 39820
> Sep 27 00:01:29 digitaldaemon qmail: 970027289.502815 info msg 39820: bytes 1559
>from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 7115 uid 82
> Sep 27 00:01:29 digitaldaemon qmail: 970027289.532512 starting delivery 1365: msg
>39820 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sep 27 00:01:29 digitaldaemon qmail: 970027289.532814 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
> Sep 27 00:01:29 digitaldaemon qmail: 970027289.533593 starting delivery 1366: msg
>39820 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sep 27 00:01:29 digitaldaemon qmail: 970027289.536599 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
> Sep 27 00:01:35 digitaldaemon qmail: 970027295.581988 delivery 1366: deferral:
>
>216.136.204.18_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_450_Client_host_rejected:_cannot_find_your_hostname,_[63.105.9.34]/Giving_up_on_216.136.204.18./
Ahhh. Much better.
> > Also, you need to show us the output of qmail-showctl
>
> qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
> user-ext delimiter: -.
Ahhh. Excellent.
> > and also tell us which IP address you are sending from.
>
> 63.105.9.34
Ahhh. Perfect.
>
> > They are running postfix and it does not like either: the results of a dns query
>on your forward/reverse or of the sender address or perhaps part of what
> > you're sending in the helo.
>
> Hmmm... Haven't noticed it before...
>
> Hope this is the info you need...
It is indeed. It's nice to see and it makes things a lot clearer - at least in
the sense of what we can exclude.
Your qmail setup looks fine. My *suspicion* is that they have some sort of source
IP based filtering going on, or possibly enforced reverse lookup tests. I tried
that same SMTP transaction from (obviously) different IP addresses and it was
accepted just fine (I rset before DATA).
Postfix interoperates just fine with qmail so it may need contacting the people
at FreeBSD.org to ask what is going on at their end.
Actually, on looking at the Postfix docs I see that they probably have
reject_unknown_client set in their configuration, which is documented as:
"Reject the request when the client IP address has no PTR record in
the DNS. The unknown_client_reject_code parameter specifies the
response code to rejected requests (default: 450)."
And your IP is in that category (thanks for telling us what it is, it made it
easy to check).
You have two choices. Get your ISP to add a PTR record for your IP(s) or convince
the folks at Freebsd.org that their config needs tweaking. It's a not uncommon
anti-UCE setting, but it's tough.
Regards.
