Re: howto select outgoing mail server ???
I am not quite certain how to do this in qmail, but I know it
is possible in Sendmail which I use... In sendmail I can monkey with the
mailertable and should then be able to setup an entry for those
domains/hosts I want to send through the ISP to set them to
<receiver domain>: esmtp:<isp'smail server hostname>
This allows you to override the normal routing... I haven't
test'd this for this situation but I do make use of mailertable entries
in LDAP to route mail from the external MX servers to internal mail
servers within networks I maintain using Sendmail... How to do the same
in qmail I wouldn't know where to begin to look but might give you or
someone else an idea...
Regards,
Jeremy
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 04:59:44PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> I have been using the following setup for many months and functioning as
> expected:
>
> cablemodem on attbi.com
> qmail on internal private network
> exim on local box
> mutt on local box
>
> So, when I send a normal email, such as this one, I compose in mutt,
> send it through exim on this local box, which uses qmail on another box
> to send to the intended recipient. This is my preferred email process,
> since my qmail is considerably more reliable than mail.attbi.com.
>
> My problem arises when I want to email recipients on networks (e.g.,
> rr.com, tera-byte.com, &c.) that do not accept my email unless sent
> through my isp's mail server.
>
> Apparently, I cannot switch outgoing smtp servers from within mutt.
>
> So, I want to figure out how to automate switching outgoing mail servers
> within either exim or qmail?
>
> I do not fully understand how exim knows to use my qmail server, other
> than the mx record on the internal private dns?
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> mds
> mds resource
> 888.250.3987
> -
> Dare to fix things before they break . . .
> -
> Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
> we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
> --
Reply to: