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

debian with smail



Hi there,

we have an internal (virtual) domain with 192.168.0.xxx IPs. Our debian
box (1.3) is the gateway to the outside world. It has an ppp connection to
a provider an several uucp connections for news and file transfer.
This box is also the smarthost for our domain.

So smail has to 
- route mail within our own domain with smtp
- pass mail for the outside world to the provider with smtp
- transfer mail to systems with direct uucp connections

Basicly everything seemed to be OK. But sometimes there is mail to
an address like user@tesla.franken.de (only as an example) which is
going wrong. This example mail has to go via the smarthost (provider)
with smtp. But it did'nt! smail tries to force a direct smtp connection
which doesn't exist.

Please cracks, have a look to my routers file:

# do I need this entry ? 
inet_addrs:
	driver=gethostbyaddr,
	transport=smtp;

# for my neighbours, that works fine	
uucp_neighbors:
	driver=uuname,
	transport=uux

# some special uucp adresses, works fine	
paths:
	driver=pathalias,
	transport=uux;
	file=paths

# for the internal domain (maybe this causes the problem .....
inet_hosts:
	driver=gethostbyname,
	transport=smtp; 
#	required=lahn.de
	domain=lahn.de

# smart host, OK
smart_host:
	driver=smarthost, 
	transport=smtp;
	path=freeway
#	transport=uux;
#	path=dyob

#########################################

When there is mail to such a critical address I comment out the inet_hosts
entry. Then the mail goes correctly via the smart host. During this time
ALL internal mail is routed via smart host and is lost there.

Any hint for my problem ?

thx & bye

berni


-- --------------------------------------------------------
 Please respond to: berni@boerdix.lahn.de or: 
 Bernhard.Ernst@giessen.netsurf.de and to nothing else ! 


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: