Fellow Exim users,
I'm trying to install a mailing list app that requires an additional "aliases" file.
How can I specify multiple alias files in the "exim.conf" file?
Thus far I have:
system_aliases:
driver = aliasfile
file_transport = address_file
pipe_transport = address_pipe
file = /etc/aliases
search_type = lsearch
# user = list
I would appreciate any feedback.
Thanks,
Pierre
exim-users-request@??? wrote:
> Send Exim-users mailing list submissions to
> exim-users@???
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> exim-users-request@???
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> exim-users-admin@???
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Exim-users digest..."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Canned clue? (Tabor J. Wells)
> 2. Re: Canned clue? (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
> 3. Re: Canned clue? (Dave C.)
> 4. Re: Canned clue? (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
> 5. Re: Canned clue? (Jeffrey Goldberg)
> 6. Re: Canned clue? (Jeffrey Goldberg)
> 7. Re: Canned clue? (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
> 8. Re: Canned clue? (Tabor J. Wells)
> 9. SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian (jens-ingo brodesser)
> 10. Re: SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian (Dave C.)
> 11. Re: SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian (Jeffrey Goldberg)
> 12. Re: SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian (jens-ingo brodesser)
> 13. Re: Canned clue? (Jeffrey Goldberg)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:19:07 -0500
> From: "Tabor J. Wells" <twells@???>
> To: exim-users@???
> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011282127030.13082-100000@???> <Pine.SOL.4.21.0011290942400.74-100000@???>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:44:46AM +0000,
> Philip Hazel <ph10@???> is thought to have said:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Dave C. wrote:
> >
> > > Someone on here once had posted a canned clue-brick type of message
> > > that they used to send to admins who had either accidentally or
> > > intentionally disabled reception of MAIL FROM:<> , but I cant seem to
> > > find it.
> >
> > 'Twas I. Here is is again.
>
> And unfortunately it doesn't even help sometimes. My most recent attempt
> at educating the clueless met with resounding failure:
>
> > Yes we do refuse mail from <>. There is no reason to accept it from an
> > unknown sender.
> >
> > Also if you would please notice the reason given is that we are trying
> > to reduce unwanted spam. If you are trying to send mail to us that is
> > unsolicited spam mail then I am very glad it is working and has stopped
> > you.
> >
> > Have a nice day.
>
> And when I tried to inform him that he was doing his users a disservice
> by blocking bounce messages destined to him, and wasn't actually doing
> anything to block spam with this:
>
> > Sir, our mail server has been setup this way for 3 years and this is
> > the first time anyone has said anything to us about this. I see no
> > reason to change the way we operate because one mail server has a
> > problem with ours.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Tabor
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tabor J. Wells twells@???
> Fsck It! Just another victim of the ambient morality
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:58:01 +0530
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???>
> Organization: Hopelessly Disorganized
> To: exim-users@???
> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011282127030.13082-100000@???> <Pine.SOL.4.21.0011290942400.74-100000@???> <20001130111907.B16100@???>
>
> Tabor J. Wells rearranged electrons thusly:
>
> [quoting a clueless admin with terminal recto-cranial inversion]
>
> > > Sir, our mail server has been setup this way for 3 years and this is
> > > the first time anyone has said anything to us about this. I see no
> > > reason to change the way we operate because one mail server has a
> > > problem with ours.
>
> > *sigh*
>
> Tabor : Was this a 'doze MTA (NTMail or iMail, most likely)? We've been
> seeing several of these - and I can't firewall that $^$#^^$# box, much as I'd
> like to (it keeps bouncing bounces - but belongs to an important business
> associate).
>
> *sigh* just about says it all :(
>
> Any workaround for this? Such as, for example, a script to kill double
> bounces like this?
>
> --
> Suresh Ramasubramanian + mallet<@>efn.org
> You spamma my mailbox, I nukea da ass
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:47:37 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Dave C." <djc@???>
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???>
> CC: exim-users@???
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > Tabor J. Wells rearranged electrons thusly:
> >
> > [quoting a clueless admin with terminal recto-cranial inversion]
> >
> > > > Sir, our mail server has been setup this way for 3 years and this is
> > > > the first time anyone has said anything to us about this. I see no
> > > > reason to change the way we operate because one mail server has a
> > > > problem with ours.
> >
> > > *sigh*
> >
> > Tabor : Was this a 'doze MTA (NTMail or iMail, most likely)? We've been
> > seeing several of these - and I can't firewall that $^$#^^$# box, much as I'd
> > like to (it keeps bouncing bounces - but belongs to an important business
> > associate).
> >
> > *sigh* just about says it all :(
> >
> > Any workaround for this? Such as, for example, a script to kill double
> > bounces like this?
>
> ignore_errmsg_errors?
>
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:47:59 +0530
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???>
> Organization: Hopelessly Disorganized
> To: exim-users@???
> References: <20001130215801.A6362@???> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011301147000.25058-100000@???>
>
> Dave C. rearranged electrons thusly:
>
> >
> > ignore_errmsg_errors?
> >
>
> That would result in a significant loss of logging info - and I dont intend to
> do that just for one stupid host. Kludge: just run a script to grep the queue
> for the double bounces from that host and delete them.
>
> --
> Suresh Ramasubramanian + mallet<@>efn.org
> You spamma my mailbox, I nukea da ass
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:28:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey+lists@???>
> Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@???>
> To: "Tabor J. Wells" <twells@???>
> CC: <exim-users@???>
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Tabor J. Wells wrote:
>
> > And unfortunately it doesn't even help sometimes. My most recent attempt
> > at educating the clueless met with resounding failure:
>
> > And when I tried to inform him that he was doing his users a disservice
> > by blocking bounce messages destined to him, and wasn't actually doing
> > anything to block spam with this:
> >
> > > Sir, our mail server has been setup this way for 3 years and this is
> > > the first time anyone has said anything to us about this. I see no
> > > reason to change the way we operate because one mail server has a
> > > problem with ours.
>
> It was about three years ago that I noticed that a major ISP in France was
> doing that, and I had users who had their mail automatically forwarded
> there (so that's how I noticed). On my complaint (cc-ed to the user in
> question) the postmaster at the ISP did change their policy.
>
> If you really want to persue this, create a web page designed for
> end-users of that (or other sites with similar policies). Include your
> correspondence quoted above. Then every time you get you have a rejected
> bounce message hanging about for this reason, alert the end user. That is
> the use who is not getting error reports.
>
> -j
>
> --
> Jeffrey Goldberg
> I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
> Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:36:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey+lists@???>
> Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@???>
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???>
> CC: <exim-users@???>
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > Dave C. rearranged electrons thusly:
> >
> > >
> > > ignore_errmsg_errors?
> > >
>
> > That would result in a significant loss of logging info.
>
> They do get logged.
>
> > - and I dont intend to do that just for one stupid host.
>
> Most of the error message errors that I have seen are the consequence of
> spam to bad addresses. I did find seeing those useful as a way of
> recognizing that a big load of spam has arrived. Maybe you want
>
> ignore_errmsg_errors_after
>
> And set it for a couple of days.
>
> -j
>
> --
> Jeffrey Goldberg
> I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
> Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:08:54 +0530
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???>
> Organization: Hopelessly Disorganized
> To: exim-users@???
> References: <20001130224759.A6637@???> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0011300930410.10809-100000@???>
>
> Jeffrey Goldberg rearranged electrons thusly:
>
> > recognizing that a big load of spam has arrived. Maybe you want
> > ignore_errmsg_errors_after
> > And set it for a couple of days.
>
> Thanks, Jeff. That should do the trick I think
>
> --
> Suresh Ramasubramanian + mallet<@>efn.org
> You spamma my mailbox, I nukea da ass
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:24:45 -0500
> From: "Tabor J. Wells" <twells@???>
> To: exim-users@???
> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011282127030.13082-100000@???> <Pine.SOL.4.21.0011290942400.74-100000@???> <20001130111907.B16100@???> <20001130215801.A6362@???>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 09:58:01PM +0530,
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???> is thought to have said:
>
> > Tabor J. Wells rearranged electrons thusly:
> >
> > [quoting a clueless admin with terminal recto-cranial inversion]
> >
> > > > Sir, our mail server has been setup this way for 3 years and this is
> > > > the first time anyone has said anything to us about this. I see no
> > > > reason to change the way we operate because one mail server has a
> > > > problem with ours.
> >
> > > *sigh*
> >
> > Tabor : Was this a 'doze MTA (NTMail or iMail, most likely)? We've been
> > seeing several of these - and I can't firewall that $^$#^^$# box, much as I'd
> > like to (it keeps bouncing bounces - but belongs to an important business
> > associate).
>
> No it wasn't NTMail or IMail's stupid default settings. MDaemon 3.5.0
> explicitly configured that way:
>
> SMTP>> MAIL FROM:<> SIZE=3541
> SMTP<< 550 Sorry, this server is configured to refuse this sort of mail (to combat the SPAM problem)
>
> > *sigh* just about says it all :(
> >
> > Any workaround for this? Such as, for example, a script to kill double
> > bounces like this?
>
> The options previously mentioned. I generally try to contact sites with
> the canned response just because I'd like to see them fixed. And most of
> them are appreciative (when they respond). This guy just irked the hell
> out of me.
>
> Tabor
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tabor J. Wells twells@???
> Fsck It! Just another victim of the ambient morality
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [Exim] SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian
> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:51:56 +0100
> From: jens-ingo brodesser <jens-ingo@???>
> To: exim-users@???
>
> i'm trying to establish authentication over PAM. the system on which
> exim runs is debian gnu/linux, Exim version 3.12 #1 built 30-Apr-2000
> 01:07:30
>
> ==============
> /etc/exim.conf
>
> host_auth_accept_relay = *
> host_accept_relay = localhost: 213.35.96.0/24
>
> login:
> driver=plaintext
> public_name=LOGIN
> server_condition="${if pam{$1:$2}{1}{0}}"
> server_prompts="Username:: : Password::"
> server_set_id=$1
> ==============
>
> ==============
> /etc/pam.d/exim
>
> auth required pam_pwdfile.so pwdfile /etc/exim.passwd
> account required pam_pwdb.so
> ==============
>
> i can't figure out why i get the following error msg :
>
> ==============
> paniclog
>
> domain missing in rewrite key string "login:" in line 423
> 2000-11-22 00:45:59 Exim configuration error
> ==============
>
> could you give me a hint ? thank you.
>
> --
> jens-ingo
> --
> - jens-ingo
>
> --
> please use PGP when replying to this message.
> PGP public key on public key servers and
> http://www.moving-art-studio.com/sendmail.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:01:50 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Dave C." <djc@???>
> To: jens-ingo brodesser <jens-ingo@???>
> CC: exim-users@???
>
> You have your authenticator driver in the config file rewrite
> section. The exim config file has multiple sections, each terminated by
> the keyword 'end'.. Each type of config must go in the appropriate
> section..
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, jens-ingo brodesser wrote:
>
> > i'm trying to establish authentication over PAM. the system on which
> > exim runs is debian gnu/linux, Exim version 3.12 #1 built 30-Apr-2000
> > 01:07:30
> >
> > ==============
> > /etc/exim.conf
> >
> > host_auth_accept_relay = *
> > host_accept_relay = localhost: 213.35.96.0/24
> >
> > login:
> > driver=plaintext
> > public_name=LOGIN
> > server_condition="${if pam{$1:$2}{1}{0}}"
> > server_prompts="Username:: : Password::"
> > server_set_id=$1
> > ==============
> >
> > ==============
> > /etc/pam.d/exim
> >
> > auth required pam_pwdfile.so pwdfile /etc/exim.passwd
> > account required pam_pwdb.so
> > ==============
> >
> > i can't figure out why i get the following error msg :
> >
> > ==============
> > paniclog
> >
> > domain missing in rewrite key string "login:" in line 423
> > 2000-11-22 00:45:59 Exim configuration error
> > ==============
> >
> > could you give me a hint ? thank you.
> >
> > --
> > jens-ingo
> >
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:01:47 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey+lists@???>
> Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@???>
> To: jens-ingo brodesser <jens-ingo@???>
> CC: <exim-users@???>
>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, jens-ingo brodesser wrote:
>
> > ==============
> > /etc/exim.conf
>
> [...]
>
> > login:
> > driver=plaintext
> > public_name=LOGIN
> > server_condition="${if pam{$1:$2}{1}{0}}"
> > server_prompts="Username:: : Password::"
> > server_set_id=$1
> > ==============
>
> > ==============
> > paniclog
> >
> > domain missing in rewrite key string "login:" in line 423
> > 2000-11-22 00:45:59 Exim configuration error
> > ==============
>
> Sections in the configure file are separated by
>
> end
>
> It looks like you've left on the "end" between the section on header
> rewriting and the section on authentication.
>
> > please use PGP when replying to this message.
>
> You posted to a mailing list, which is where I am copying my reply. So I
> think you will understand why I don't encrypt this to you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -j
>
> --
> Jeffrey Goldberg
> I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
> Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] SMTP out with PAM authentication, Debian
> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:04:29 +0100
> From: jens-ingo brodesser <jens-ingo@???>
> To: exim-users@???
> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011301901030.25058-100000@???>
>
> At 19:01 -0500 30/11/00, you wrote:
>
> >You have your authenticator driver in the config file rewrite
> >section. The exim config file has multiple sections, each terminated by
> >the keyword 'end'.. Each type of config must go in the appropriate
> >section..
> >
>
> ######################################################################
> # MAIN CONFIGURATION SETTINGS #
> ######################################################################
>
> [...]
>
> host_auth_accept_relay = *
> host_accept_relay = localhost: 213.35.95.0/24
>
> [...]
>
> end
>
> [...]
>
> ######################################################################
> # REWRITE CONFIGURATION #
> ######################################################################
>
> *@all2all.org ${lookup{$1}lsearch{/etc/email-addresses}\
> {$value}fail} bcfrF
>
> *@provelo.org ${lookup{$1}lsearch{/etc/email-addresses}\
> {$value}fail} bcfrF
>
> *@revobild.net ${lookup{$1}lsearch{/etc/email-addresses}\
> {$value}fail} bcfrF
>
> *@antitv.net ${lookup{$1}lsearch{/etc/email-addresses}\
> {$value}fail} bcfrF
>
> ######################################################################
> # AUTHENTICATION CONFIGURATION #
> ######################################################################
>
> login:
> driver=plaintext
> public_name=LOGIN
> server_condition="${if pam{$1:$2}{1}{0}}"
> server_prompts="Username:: : Password::"
> server_set_id=$1
>
> the different sections have been respected, sorry, i didn't quote the
> config file correctly. the problem was actually as David C. and
> Jeffrey Goldberg said the missing *end* keyword between the last two
> sections (rewrite and authentication).
>
> but still only relaying to local users is accepted for relaying now.
> there seems to be something missing. when i try to send to other
> domains than mine i get this rejectlog error :
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2000-12-01 09:49:19 Authentication failed for ([212.68.216.69])
> [212.68.216.69]: 435 Unable to authenticate at present: unknown
> condition "pam"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2000-12-01 09:49:19 refused relay (host) to <exim-users@???>
> from <jens-ingo@???> H=([212.68.216.69]) [212.68.216.69
> ] (failed to find host name from IP address)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> i suppose it has to do with
>
> host_auth_accept_relay = *
> host_accept_relay = localhost: 213.35.95.0/24
>
> i tried to remove the host_accept_relay, it didn't change anything.
>
> thank you
>
> --
> -jens-ingo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Canned clue?
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:02:41 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@???>
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???>
> CC: <exim-users@???>
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > Jeffrey Goldberg rearranged electrons thusly:
> >
> > > recognizing that a big load of spam has arrived. Maybe you want
> > > ignore_errmsg_errors_after
> > > And set it for a couple of days.
> >
> > Thanks, Jeff. That should do the trick I think
>
> I suspect so. How much time you give it is up to you. When running mail
> at Cranfield.ac.uk, I first set it to 2d, then after a few weeks set it to
> 1d and by the end I set it to 12h. It really depends on quantity and how
> much clutter you'll accept in your queue versus how sure you don't want to
> miss anything that might indicate a problem you can solve (like my story
> with ifrance.com which I might have missed with the 12h drop.)
>
> -j
>
> --
> Jeffrey Goldberg
> I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
> Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
