Re: [Exim] Backup mail server configs

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Matthew Daubenspeck
Date:  
To: exim-users
Subject: Re: [Exim] Backup mail server configs
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 08:12:30AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote:
>
> > Is anyone using exim as a main server as well as 1 (or more) exim
> > servers as a backup MX? If so, can someone explain how to configure it
> > properly?
>
> Yes.
>
> Okay.
>
> > I have the backup simply able to relay messages for the
> > domains that are hosted on the main mail server, and it properly
> > accepts and queues messages. However, it seems that the backup server
> > ignores any retry rules listed and trys to send the messages
> > immediatly, resulting in a failed message because of "a suspected mail
> > loop."
>
> This is what I do (with 3.x) on back up server:
>
> - no extra retry rules -- just use the defaults
> - domain is not listed in local_domains
> - domain is listed in relay_domains
>
> It takes about 30 seconds to set up.
>
> Also, make sure the DNS is correct: high priority (low number) MX point to
> real (main) mail server and low priority (larger number) MX for backup
> mail server.


That's exactly how I have it configured, and the backup server seems
to keep sending messages constantly, and ignoring the retry rules. It
seems that the message never actually fails, because it always
delivers messages, even to itself. This is the error:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software
(Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
failed:

  matt@???
      Too many "Received" headers - suspected mail loop.


There are then about 30 of these:

Received: from pool-151-201-155-118.phil.east.verizon.net
([151.201.155.118]
helo=ordeal.daubnet.dns2go.com)
        by ordeal.daubnet.dns2go.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1
    (Debian))
        id 175WSO-0002kj-00
        for <matt@???>; Wed, 08 May 2002 14:46:32 -0400


Each with it's own ID, each with a different delivery time...