On 03.04.2006, at 07:50, Alain Fauconnet wrote: > > ... > You're right. How could I forget this? I've been bitten by these silly > transport entries too. Putting these in a distribution aiming at > solidity like Trustix is a major goof IMHO. They're pointless, mostly > undocumented, obviously do not apply to many situations (like when > using a relayhost!), they create confusion. I'd create a bug entry if > the Trustix Bugzilla weren't as completely unattended for as it seems > to be now :-(
dunno, these entries served me well, everybody in the colo where some of the servers I maintain had difficulty reaching this big domains, please don't get me wrong, these little helpers are for me the REAL SERVER OS parts. I don't run trustix as MTA on a dynamic IP. For me the idea of running a MTA on a dynamic address is funny, since it creates more troubles then it helps. If you need only relay connectivity to the providers MTA, just put the wild card above the stock tsl lines, and it should be fine. Also, my understanding would be that a relay in main.cf should override transport doesn't it? so I would ask tim to put the output of postconf somewhere on the web, and all other files as transport via grep -v \# transport if they are modified against state of the rpm. then we can have a look at it, and help. And yes, I've seen this connection failures, and that why I even added other domains to the list of bigandslow domains (t-online.de from outside germany anyone?) matthias --- now trolling back and tries to do trustix like postfix on solaris 11 .... _______________________________________________ tsl-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss
