Re: [Exim] Bizaare log entry

Páxina inicial
Borrar esta mensaxe
Responder a esta mensaxe
Autor: Tabor J. Wells
Data:  
Para: Justin F. Knotzke
CC: exim-users
Asunto: Re: [Exim] Bizaare log entry
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:41:30PM -0400,
Justin F. Knotzke <jknotzke@???> is thought to have said:

> 2003-08-18 18:07:44 H=(cnfax.com) [218.13.251.100] U=root sender verify
> fail for <sales@cn fax.com>: response to "RCPT TO:<sales@???>" from
> mail.netvigator.com [218.102.48.123 ] was: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
> 2003-08-18 18:07:44 H=(cnfax.com) [218.13.251.100] U=root F=<sales@???> rejected RCP
> T <info@???>: Sender verify failed
> 2003-08-18 18:07:44 unexpected disconnection while reading SMTP command from (cnfax.com) [
> 218.13.251.100] U=root
>
>    My first question is the "U=root". I take it this means that the user
> 'root' tried to send this message from 218.13.251.100 ?

>
>    My next question is the "was: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list
> of.."

>
>    Where does this message come from? I cannot find this message
> anywhere in my exim.conf file. It appears to be a qmail message.


cnfax.com lists two MX records for it's domain:

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;cnfax.com.                     IN      MX


;; ANSWER SECTION:
cnfax.com.              24192   IN      MX      20 mail.netvigator.com.
cnfax.com.              24192   IN      MX      10 mail.cnfax.com.


;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
cnfax.com.              24192   IN      NS      ns1.hktel.com.
cnfax.com.              24192   IN      NS      ns2.mbfax.com.



One of them, the one you happened to attempt to connect to verify
sales@??? works (do you have callouts turned on?) returns an error
messages which essentially means it's not configured to accept mail for the
domain cnfax.com.

In short there's nothing you can do. cnfax.com has broken their mail service
by listing a MX that won't take mail for their domain.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabor J. Wells                                     twells@???
Fsck It!                 Just another victim of the ambient morality