RE: [Exim] How can exim4 get a 554 error but telnet 25 works…

Góra strony
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Hancock, Scott
Data:  
Dla: exim-users
Temat: RE: [Exim] How can exim4 get a 554 error but telnet 25 works?
Thank you for the SMTP syntax corrections. Since only one session of
many produced the error, I'm confident the telnet session error was
syntax problem. Can we deduce that exim 4 is also offending the mail
server in a similar way?

Here is my latest telnet attempt with Matthew's comments in mind.
Obviously, I didn't completely understand Matthew's comments. There are
reasons for my apparent laziness, first on the list is I'm trying to
close on a new house in 3 hours. So I'm posting with continuity in
mind.

pebbles:/home/scott/tmp# telnet 62.159.28.1 25
Trying 62.159.28.1...
Connected to 62.159.28.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail1.sms-demag.de ESMTP Service (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) ready
at Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:18:58 +0200
ehlo pebbles.morganco.com
250-mail1.sms-demag.de Hello pebbles.morganco.com ([216.47.36.83]),
pleased to meet you
250-HELP
250-DSN
250-SIZE 102400000
250 PIPELINING
mail from:<hancocks@???>
250 hancocks@???... Sender OK
rcpt to:<Konrad.Roeingh@???>
250 Konrad.Roeingh@???... Recipient OK
data
354 Enter message, end with "." on a line by itself
hello this should be the subject

this is the body

delete this email.
.
250 Message accepted for delivery
quit

>
>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
>
>> Are you absolutely sure it's not just whatever spool storage they're
>using
>> being filled up? (with open relay mail? spam?)


Not absolutely sure, however, all but one of my 10+ telnet sessions (as
poor as they were/are) were successful and my other Debian box running
exim Version: 3.36-9.1 is 100% successful in about 15 emails.

>>
>> It certainly looks a lot like it's their problem...
>
>Indeed. However, it might be worth trying a telnet with an absolutely
>error-free SMTP session, just to see if it is one of the small
>non-standardnesses that is bugging them.


I guess they passed this test.

Thanks for your help.

Scott Hancock
Morgan Construction Co