On Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:04:52 Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2014-01-19, Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@???> wrote:
> >> A better approach is to set it statically but duplicate the transport,
> >> have one for each interface and then, in the router, use a conditon
> >> or use an expansion for the transport name.
> >
> > Yes I like this, thanks for pointing it out. :-)
>
> It's not perfect though, the retry records get shared between both
> outbound addresses, this can be bad. If someone (recipient MX) blocks
> one address (eg: using a firewall), the other can refuse to try.
> There's a work-around that involves just using an expansion in
> one of the parameters. I forget which. (I think, ironically, that it
> may be the interface parameter)
Hmm. I'm not quite sure I understand this; it sounds like retry records thus
differ depending on which router or transport they went through. However I'm
not in a rush to try to merge the configuration, although I seem to have
another issue which may make me want to try to.
Messages received from the second Exim listening on eth0:0 appears
(though this doesn't make sense) to be sending mail to "itself" on the primary
interface that it's not actually listening on. The two daemons have separate
logging areas, and the logs for the "normal" Exim daemon listening on the
primary interface does not show mail passing through it. But the headers on
received messages show a second Received: line of the mail passing to the
primary interface.
Legend:
["primary" interface eth0: 64.85.165.57 ("lethe"), eth0:0: 64.85.165.58 ("lethe2")]
Received: from lethe2.ofobscurity.com ([64.85.165.58] ident=e0cc407ce62008148c73709d627ca082)
by lethe.ofobscurity.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <coredump+bounces-33-chris.knadle=coredump.us@???>)
id 1W4ZKV-0000R0-1x
for chris.knadle@???; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:05:07 -0500
Received: from lethe.ofobscurity.com ([64.85.165.57] ident=d11ec0054d91a340b8193f0da08e4130)
by lethe2.ofobscurity.com with smtp (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <coredump+bounces-33-chris.knadle=coredump.us@???>)
id 1W4ZKV-0000Qv-4L
for chris.knadle@???; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:05:07 -0500
Received: from pool-173-77-210-97.nycmny.fios.verizon.net ([173.77.210.97] helo=trelane.coredump.us)
by lethe2.ofobscurity.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
(Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <Chris.Knadle@???>)
id 1W4ZKP-0000QZ-3s
for coredump@???; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:05:07 -0500
This second Received: line in the headers is a problem, because it means if
one IP gets flagged in an RBL , then they likely both will. The third
Received: (at the top) is fine -- that's the mail passing from one daemon to
another to send the message to my private mail, and that transfer is in the
logs for both daemons.
Another curious hint is that if I don't allow mail relaying from the primary
interface, then mail going to the (test) mailing list address on eth0:0 gets
rejected, "relay not permitted", even though I have the domain used for the
list set in relay_to_domains. I've likely got a fundamental misconfiguration,
though what it is isn't immediately obvious to me.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@???
