[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Having problem with Exim4 / Authenticate and Relay



On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:45:44PM -0500, Christopher Molnar wrote:
> I am having a problem with allowing relay access to any authenticated  
> user. I have added the "Accept Authenticated *" line into the config.  
> Authenticated users are still being denied relay access with an error  
> 550 .
> 
> I must have this capability as the majority of the people using the  
> server are laptop users and come in from a variety of other networks.
> 
> Can anyone give me any idea? I have read every bit of documentation I  
> can find and have gone through the file line by line. I am using the  
> Single config template format.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Chris
> 
I don't know if this helps though it solved my authenicate problem.  I
take no credit as I learned it from an earlier posting by Sridar M. A.


Sridar M. A. wrote:

"The passwd_client seems to be Debian specific but it did not work.  I edited /etc/exim4/conf.d/30_exim4-config_examples to include  the login id and password.  Just including below the relevant section: 

plain: 
  driver = plaintext 
  public_name = PLAIN 
  client_send = ^user@mylog.org^secret 
#.ifndef . . . 
. 
. 
. 
#.endif" 

I tried this at the time without success not realizing that his choice of file to edit was appropriate when using a split configuration. After floudering around wildly and asking a lot of dumb questions it finally dawned on me that I was not using a split configuration.  Accordingly I went to /etc/exim4, ran grep -n plain: exim4.conf.template, used vi to edit at the line number adding a line client_send = ^our_user_name@verizon.net^our_password and commenting out all the lines of the if statement, and then ran update-exim4.conf.  After this mail from Mutt was sent with no problem. 
> 
--Tom George
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 
> 



Reply to: