Chris Marcellin wrote:
Jake Vickers wrote:
Chris Marcellin wrote:
Hi all;
i have 2 questions if i may.
first of all, smtp-auth replaces roaming users right, well, if i
understand correctly, roaming users is users who can use a MUA
outside of the domain, or outside a subnet of IP's of the local
domain, or basically anywhere on the net, is this correct? and
smtp-auth replaces roaming users, but, it authenticates first, right?
is smtp-auth built in, or do i have to configure anything, i'm using
the latest version of qmailtoaster. i pretty much read every thread
on this site, and i came by a link on how to set up outlook, the link
is http://www.itc.virginia.edu/desktop/email/smtpauth/outlookxp.html.
but, at the end of that page, it mentions i should replace the
standard smtp port to 587, does this apply to qmailtoaster as well,
or was that for that particular site? and should i use a different
port other than the typical smtp port. sorry for all the questions.
the last question is regarding spf. i have set up my spf correctly,
and i'm using the standard setting of 3, but, someone contacted me
today that i know, and they told me that they sent me an email, and
got a bounce telling them that it was an issue of spf. i looked in my
smtp log file, and there was no mention of it. so, to make a long
story short, i set my setting to 2 instead, then did a qmailctl stop,
then qmailctl start, is this correct, or do i have to do restart
another service or build a database?
again, sorry for all the questions at once.
What that website told you to do is pretty much what you need to do
here as well. Make sure the box "my sever requires authentication" is
ticked. QMail used to just let you send emails if you checked your
email first, but this was replaced by logging in to send emails since
this is a better method. You can leave the box for "use same settings
as incoming server" checked, and there is no need to change ports.
Many ISP's (and probably the site you looked at as well) are blocking
port 25, in the hopes that this will reduce the amount of spam they
get. Leave yours the way it is unless you have to change it for some
reason.
That SPF level (3) should have been good. Unless your friend's domain
specifically failed his message then your machine would not have
bounced it. Would it be possible to see the error message?
Here you go Jake, and thankx all for the quick replies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
The original message was received at Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:13:47 -0400
from mailscan3.CC.McGill.CA [132.216.77.250]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(reason: 550 See
http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=hkiewe%40cim.mcgill.ca&ip=132.206.27.49
&receiver=mail.canus.org (#5.7.1))
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to webmail.canus.org.:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 See
http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=hkiewe%40cim.mcgill.ca&ip=132.206.27.49
&receiver=mail.canus.org (#5.7.1)
550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
<<< 503 RCPT first (#5.5.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting-MTA: dns; torrent.cc.mcgill.ca
Received-From-MTA: DNS; mailscan3.CC.McGill.CA
Arrival-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:13:47 -0400
Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; webmail.canus.org
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 See
http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=hkiewe%40cim.mcgill.ca&ip=132.206.27.49&receiver=mail.canus.org
(#5.7.1)
Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:13:50 -0400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mailscan3.cc.mcgill.ca (mailscan3.CC.McGill.CA [132.216.77.250])
by torrent.cc.mcgill.ca (8.12.11/8.12.3) with ESMTP id k7NMDl1K032399
for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:13:47 -0400
Received: from Sue ([132.206.162.223]) by mailscan3.cc.mcgill.ca
(8.13.6/8.13.0) with SMTP id k7NMDbvr026743 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed,
23 Aug 2006 18:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:13:39 -0400
From: "Howard Kiewe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Inside work upstairs
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Marcellin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
$ dig cim.mcgill.ca TXT
shows (among other things):
;; ANSWER SECTION:
cim.mcgill.ca. 1200 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx -all"
This SPF record indicates that the only server allowed to send mail from
cim.mcgill.ca is the mx server.
$ dig cim.mcgill.ca MX
;; ANSWER SECTION:
cim.mcgill.ca. 1200 IN MX 50 avalanche.cim.mcgill.ca.
$ ping -c1 avalanche.cim.mcgill.ca
PING avalanche.cim.mcgill.ca (132.206.73.241) 56(84) bytes of data.
So we see that the server avalanche whose IP address is 132.206.73.241 is
the only server allowed to send email from cim.mcgill.ca.
According to the return paths, the email from Howard came from Sue
(132.206.162.223) who gave it to mailscan3.CC.McGill.CA [132.216.77.250] who
gave it to your server.
The problem lies in the DNS configuration for mcgill.ca. Their TXT record
for SPF should look something like this:
cim.mcgill.ca. 1200 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx include:mailscan3.CC.McGill.CA -all"
Have Howard tell his DNS administrator to fix their DNS TXT record for SPF.
He can use the SPF wizard at http://spf.pobox.org for help.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
