Would this be your problem ?
Do a search for the current URL's on contribs.org.
Regs
Ray
http://www.e-smith.org/bboard//read.php?f=3&i=38289&t=38289transparent smtp proxy in 6.0b3
Author: Michael Soulier (michael_soulier_AT_mitel.com)
Date: 10-27-03 14:37
Many users have been unpleasantly surprised by the new transparent smtp proxy in 6.0b3, and have looked for a way to turn it off. To that end, please test the following rpms, found in my contrib
area on our mirrors later today.
e-smith-email-4.14.0-06.noarch.rpm
e-smith-mailfront-1.3.0-09.noarch.rpm
Install like so:
rpm -Uvh *.rpm
/etc/e-smith/events/actions/initialize-default-databases
/sbin/e-smith/signal-event remoteaccess-update
/etc/e-smith/events/actions/restart-masq
Now, you should have a "Proxy" property in your "smtpfront-qmail"
record in the configuration database. It is enabled by default. The
following will disable it.
/sbin/e-smith/config setprop smtpfront-qmail Proxy disabled
/sbin/e-smith/signal-event remoteaccess-update
Obviously, it can be reenabled again just as easily.
Please report any problems to smebugs@mitel.com.
Thanks,
Mike
*******************************************
http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org/msg12212.htmlFrom: maverick
Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] All POP3 mail passing through qmail on SME 6.0b3 box - why?
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:50:40 -0800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello again all...
I've been trying for 15 minutes to send some e-mail to a buddy with a
dell.com e-mail address...and it keeps bouncing back to me from qmail on my
SME box. This doesn't make any sense to me because the outbound SMTP server
setings in Outlook on this machine (WinXP machine behind the SME box) are
set to the IPs of the mail servers of my e-mail account providers. Why
isn't this machine (on NAT behind the SME box) directly connecting out to
the SMTP servers (Comcast and a local ISP where I have some mail accounts)
and sending the mail along? For some reason, SME and qmail are getting
stuck in the middle and are attempting to send out this mail for me - which
it shouldn't be doing. This problem didn't exist with the old E-Smith 4.1.2
box that I stopped using last week.
Here are three examples of what I'm getting back. The first message was
sent from this WinXP machine directly to the SME box's SMTP server, the
second message went out to smtp.comcast.net (until SME snagged it on it's
way out) and the third message was supposed to go directly to a local ISP's
mail server - again snagged on the way out.
-----------------------------------------------
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at fullduplex.dyndns.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Connected to 143.166.224.193 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 553 5.3.0 Rejected - see
http://www.mail-abuse.org/rbl+/--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 2907 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 16:20:54 -0000
Received: from pc-00055.fullduplex.dyndns.org (HELO landfill) (192.168.1.55)
by core.fullduplex.dyndns.org (192.168.1.1) with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003
16:20:54 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "maverick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Call me a/s/a/p
-----------------------------------------------
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at fullduplex.dyndns.org.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Connected to 63.240.76.26 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 550-68.52.234.206 blocked by
blacklist.mail.ops.asp.att.net.
550 Comcast.net subscribers are no longer permitted to directly connect to
this mail server. To send email to other Comcast.net subscribers, you may
forward messages through smtp.comcast.net
--- Below this line is the original bounce.
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 2936 invoked for bounce); 27 Oct 2003 16:22:30 -0000
Date: 27 Oct 2003 16:22:30 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
-----------------------------------------------
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at fullduplex.dyndns.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Connected to 143.166.224.193 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 553 5.3.0 Rejected - see
http://www.mail-abuse.org/rbl+/--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 3051 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 16:35:40 -0000
Received: from pc-00055.fullduplex.dyndns.org (HELO landfill) (192.168.1.55)
by core.fullduplex.dyndns.org (192.168.1.1) with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003
16:35:40 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Matt Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Call me a/s/a/p please...
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:35:39 -0600
-----------------------------------------------
This happens with most of the mail I send out through the new SME box - and
it doesn't necessarily have to be going to dell.com, either.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
Matt
**********************************************
http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org/msg12214.htmlFrom: Craig Foster
Subject: RE: [e-smith-devinfo] All POP3 mail passing through qmail on SME 6.0b3 box - why?
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:08:12 -0800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methinks this is gonna be a love-hate thing...
I like the fact that laptop users can set their own ISP's SMTP connection,
but when there in an office - it's sent using the local smtp server.
It takes the worry out of mobile people's e-mail profiles
By the same token, it does make diagnosing someone elses mail server
problems that bit more difficult, especially as some ISPs are now blocking
port 25 traffic to servers other than through their own. (it's a question of
at what point is it my choice....)
It's a new fragment :-
/etc/e-smith/templates/etc/rc.d/init.d/masq/35SMTPProxy
Create a blank version in
/etc/e-smith/templates-custom/etc/rc.d/init.d/masq/35SMTPProxy
And /sbin/e-smith/expand-template /etc/rc.d/init.d/masq
Regards,
Craig F.
*******************************************
http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org/msg12215.htmlFrom: Charlie Brady
Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] OT (was Re: [e-smith-devinfo] All POP3 mail passing through qmail on SME 6.0b3 box - why?)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:22:06 -0800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, maverick wrote:
> I've been trying for 15 minutes to send some e-mail to a buddy with a
> dell.com e-mail address...
This is off topic for this list. This is not a technical support forum.
> and it keeps bouncing back to me from qmail on my
> SME box.
Yes, because Dell (etc) is rejecting it. They're telling you why too, but
it seems you haven't read the reasons.
This doesn't make any sense to me because the outbound SMTP server
> setings in Outlook on this machine (WinXP machine behind the SME box) are
> set to the IPs of the mail servers of my e-mail account providers.
> For some reason, SME and qmail are getting
> stuck in the middle and are attempting to send out this mail for me
It does that by design. But in any case, it won't make any difference. A
masqueraded connection will appear the same as a transparent proxied
connection to the peer SMTP server.
Followup (if any) to the bulletin board please.
--
Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mitel Networks Corporation
http://www.mitel.com/*****************************************
http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org/msg12216.htmlFrom: Gordon Rowell
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] All POP3 mail passing through qmail on SME 6.0b3 box - why?
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:26:59 -0800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:59:29AM +0800, Craig Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Methinks this is gonna be a love-hate thing...
>
> I like the fact that laptop users can set their own ISP's SMTP connection,
> but when there in an office - it's sent using the local smtp server.
> It takes the worry out of mobile people's e-mail profiles
> [...]
And more, it ensures that outgoing mail is scanned by a virus
scanner. Otherwise, PC borne viruses can happily connect to external
SMTP servers. This way the viruses get stopped, and logged, locally.
Agreed on the choice issue - it should be configurable, but the default
is "correct" when virus scanning is part of the mix.
Thanks,
Gordon
--
Gordon Rowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gormand.com.au Gormand Pty Ltd PO Box 239 St Pauls NSW 2031 Australia
**********************************************************
http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org/msg12222.htmlFrom: Michael P. Soulier
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] All POP3 mail passing through qmail on SME 6.0b3 box - why?
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:47:29 -0800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 27/10/03 Gordon Rowell did say:
> Agreed on the choice issue - it should be configurable, but the default
> is "correct" when virus scanning is part of the mix.
I've just posted this to the forums. Replies there please.
http://www.e-smith.org/bboard//read.php?f=3&i=38289&t=38289 Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 613-592-2122 x2522
6000/6010/60* Development, Mitel Networks Corporation
"...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount
of nerd-like effort." -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix
**************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************
http://www.e-smith.org/bboard//read.php?f=3&i=38289&t=38289transparent smtp proxy in 6.0b3
Author: Michael Soulier (michael_soulier_AT_mitel.com)
Date: 10-27-03 14:37
Many users have been unpleasantly surprised by the new transparent smtp proxy in 6.0b3, and have looked for a way to turn it off. To that end, please test the following rpms, found in my contrib
area on our mirrors later today.
e-smith-email-4.14.0-06.noarch.rpm
e-smith-mailfront-1.3.0-09.noarch.rpm
Install like so:
rpm -Uvh *.rpm
/etc/e-smith/events/actions/initialize-default-databases
/sbin/e-smith/signal-event remoteaccess-update
/etc/e-smith/events/actions/restart-masq
Now, you should have a "Proxy" property in your "smtpfront-qmail"
record in the configuration database. It is enabled by default. The
following will disable it.
/sbin/e-smith/config setprop smtpfront-qmail Proxy disabled
/sbin/e-smith/signal-event remoteaccess-update
Obviously, it can be reenabled again just as easily.
Please report any problems to smebugs@mitel.com.
Thanks,
Mike
*******************************
Author: rick (rick at jokiin dot com)
Date: 10-27-03 19:20
please excuse my ignorance, but what are the advantages or disadvantages of the transparent proxy?
******************************
Author: Michael Soulier (michael_soulier_AT_mitel.com)
Date: 10-28-03 08:30
rick wrote:
>
> please excuse my ignorance, but what are the advantages or
> disadvantages of the transparent proxy?
The advantages are that you force all outgoing smtp to go through the server, thus being subject to any limitations you place upon outgoing mail, and (in the commercial release) virus scanning. As many recent viruses have relied on emailing themselves out to infect other machines, this feature can be used to prevent such propagation.
As we cannot assume that everyone's needs are the same, we do our best to keep the server flexible. It always was, mind you, via the custom templates, but this solution is friendlier.
Regards,
Mike
*********************************
Author: Kai Duebbert (e-smith_AT_duebbert.de)
Date: 10-30-03 03:56
Thanks for the addition! Having a server in China it's really not wise to use the transparent proxy. If this contrib now gets included into the "services" contrib (can't be difficult, can it?), then my life would be perfect...
Kai
************************************
Author: Michael Soulier (michael_soulier_AT_mitel.com)
Date: 10-30-03 19:52
Kai Duebbert wrote:
>
> Thanks for the addition! Having a server in China it's really
> not wise to use the transparent proxy. If this contrib now
> gets included into the "services" contrib (can't be
> difficult, can it?), then my life would be perfect...
It's not a contrib. It's development code for the server.
Regards,
Mike
***************************************
Author: Kai Duebbert
Date: 10-30-03 20:41
Even better.
**************************************