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

Re: is exim attempting to relay ???



Please, any commentary at all?

Also sprach Michael D. Schleif (Thu 07 Aug 02003 at 04:45:17PM -0500):
> Recently, I am getting emails bounced back to me from my mail gateway.
> Strangely, the attempted outgoing From: is
> FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@bragi.private.network ?!?!
> 
> The entire bounce is here:
> 
>    <http://helices.org/tmP/exim.relay.txt>
> 
> I do not claim to know much about this process.
> 
> However, correct me if I'm wrong, it looks to me that -- initially --
> fetchmail gets an email message from one of my many remote mail servers,
> and passes it off to exim for local processing.
> 
> The To: header is mangled, and noted, and 550 is returned.
> 
> Then, somehow -- this is the part that I do not understand, and that I
> want to *STOP* happening -- FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@bragi.private.network
> attempts to send an email -- containing this 550 error -- to some
> address unknown to me.  Note: the URL is only one (1) of many
> _different_ examples I am seeing.
> 
> Of course, the remote SMTP server rejects
> FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@bragi.private.network: Domain not found, and
> eventually, I receive the error that the bounce bounced!
> 
> So, I want to know several things:
> 
> [1] Am I correct on the process as evident from the URL?
> 
> [2] What process steps am I missing and/or misunderstanding?
> 
> [3] How can I prevent these attempts to send these messages From:
> FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@bragi.private.network?
> 
> [4] Is exim the culprit?  Need I configure it differently?
> 
>    # sudo exim -bV
>    Exim version 3.36 #1 built 24-Jul-2003 23:00:48
>    Copyright (c) University of Cambridge 2002
> 
> What do you think?

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
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 . . .
--

Attachment: pgpsjw0ff0jqy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: