On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 08:30:45PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:04PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > Now, my mail seems to be coming and going... mostly happily. > > But I keep seeing this in eximon (which is just showing me exim's mainlog, > > AFAIK): > > > > 22:46:08 SMTP command timeout on connection from miguel (localhost) [127.0.0.1] > > 22:46:22 unqualified recipient rejected: <fetchmail> H=miguel (localhost) [127.0.0.1] U=fetchmail > > That looks like exim is complaining because it can't deliver mail to an > address called 'miguel', which is missing a hostname. I *think* you > have to add a 'qualify_domain' or 'qualify_recipient' line to > /etc/exim/exim.conf so that it has a default hostname to slap on it. Actually, miguel is the name of my machine, and it's already set as the 'qualify_domain'. Qualify_recipient is not set, so it should default to 'qualify_domain', according to the comments in /etc/exim.conf . > Or > maybe you've done something odd to your ~/.forward that exim thinks is > an email address? Doesn't *seem* to be. There's no actual mention of miguel or fetchmail anywhere in my .forward... > But, yeah, I only have a very, er, 'working' knowledge of exim (aka I > muddle my way through it, but don't *Really* know what I'm doing...), so > IANEximHacker, don't sue, eat vegetables, etc :) And don't forget the sunscreen. ;-) > As I said, maybe it's a broken config thingy? Do you mention the word > 'miguel' in your ~/.forward or something? As mentioned, nope. And I rearranged my .forward file a little (just in case I'd screwed up on the logic or syntax or something), but that had no effect on the error. Mail's still coming and going, the new filter rules work just as well as the old ones, and that same pair of messages comes up in the same order every time fetchmail does its poll. > Oh yeah, been there and still am. Exim may be 'well' documented, but if > you don't know mail systems like the back of your hand (as I certainly > don't), it's nigh impossible to get anywhere with it. Yeah, that's about what I'm finding. Perhaps 'thoroughly' documented is a bit more to the point, rather than 'well'... And definitely the docs seem to be aimed at someone with a *very* comfortable understanding of how mail-systems-in-general work. Sadly, that 'someone' isn't me. Thanks, -Chris
Attachment:
pgpX4J0oF6ijQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature