| |
| |
| |
|
Comments:
<roxlu> Hi all
<roxlu> Can anyone please help me...
<roxlu> I'm handling email for lets say: domain.com. But the client gets an 550 error when she wants to send the email.. The "relay" field in the log shows also something like: "h2134234dsl.speedadsl.com"
<StR> hello!
<StR> If I specify in DaemonPortOptions= M=a, is there any way of allowing a list of hosts to relay without authnetication (e.g. via access.db)?
<StR> Alternatively, I am looking for an elegant way of allowing relaying for authenticated remote users, and without authentication for local users (from msa) and a few specified hosts. Any suggestions?
<sub> Isn't that what sendmail does with access_db?
<StR> sub: I haven't tried, but I am not sure if access_db overrides M=a in DaemonPortOptions
<sub> What problem are you trying to solve?
<StR> I am looking for an elegant way of allowing relaying for authenticated remote users, and without authentication for local users (from msa) and a few specified hosts.
<StR> (and nobody else from outside)
<sub> SMTP AUTH and IP addresses in access_db does that
<StR> i.e. not accepting other connections
<sub> Hmm
<StR> let me correct myself: not accepting mail from other connections
<sub> Could do with a ruleset I guess
<StR> my question: does access_db override (makes an exception for the hosts listed) the M=a option?
<spork> iirc, yes
<spork> local users, and connections listed within access do not have to authenticate
<spork> non-known address (ones which fail to exist within access_db) will require additional authentication steps, i.e. tls, smtp auth, etc.
<spork> addess/ip addresses
<sub> It should be trivial to check that
<spork> hosts, etc.
<spork> hey, I just responded to a sendmail question
<sub> :)
<StR> spork: :-) thanks
<StR> sub: Yes, I will check, but since this will be done on a "live" server, I'd like to minimize the number of trials, and especially the number of errors :-)
<sub> set up a server
<spork> StR so long as you maintain the IP's / hostnames of the servers which you want to exclude from authentication steps within access_db you shouldn't have any problems
<sub> Do you want me to test?
<spork> of course this all ***umes you've built sendmail and your configuration file correctly =)
<StR> sub: it's ok. thanks.
<StR> spork he-he :) sure.
<sub> str, why is it an issue btw?
<StR> sub: it is not an issue, just reconfiguring sendmail to new requirements
<spork> I hate parsing text
<spork> =/
<StR> sub: so, since I never knew for sure and never tested what takes precedence, I though't I'd ask people who might know.
<spork> if this is a production server, you should always maintain a backup
<spork> (both primary server backup, and additional machine to allow testing on prior to deployment)
<spork> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
<spork> no warnings;
<spork> =)
<StR> Thanks, spork and sub!
<sub> str, did you try it?
<sub> This spells our doom!
<sub> A new scientific breakthrough may lead to women in future being able to produce sperm
Return to
#sendmail
or
Go to some related
logs:
#computers
#politics
defrag tells me to run chkdsk f
four way power molexs
#c
#microsoft
lXcomp Ubuntu
#gamedev
#openbsd
what is benzodiazephine
|
|
