Re: Exim default interface
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Karsten M. Self wrote:
| on Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:24:29AM +0000, Greg Bolshaw
(greg@linuxtechnologies.co.uk) wrote:
|
|>Hi
|>
|>I have a server with a single interface (eth0), and 3 virtual interfaces
|>(eth0:0, eth0:1 and eth0:2). Exim is configured to listen on all
interfaces.
|>
|>When Exim sends mail to the Internet, I would expect it to go out on the
|>IP address of the primary interface (eth0). Instead, it appears to be
|>going out on one of the virtual interfaces (eth0:2).
|>
|>Where can I specify which interface to use for sending mail out? Also,
|>why is it defaulting to eth0:2?
|
| Check your routing rules. What's your default gateway? Are you sure?
Nothing in out of the ordinary in ROUTERS section of exim.conf:
lookuphost:
~ driver = lookuphost
~ transport = remote_smtp
literal:
~ driver = ipliteral
~ transport = remote_smtp
end
Default gateway is 81.187.199.1: (not bound to any of the local interfaces)
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
Iface
localnet * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
default 81.187.199.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
default 81.187.199.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
default 81.187.199.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
default 81.187.199.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
Positive that mail is going out on eth0:2. Check the headers of this
e-mail....
eth0 is ultra.linuxtechnologies.co.uk (81.187.199.9)
eth0:2 is mail.hasan.org (81.187.199.6)
Thanks
Greg
- --
+==============================================================+
| Greg Bolshaw LPIC E-Mail: greg@linuxtechnologies.co.uk |
| Consultant Web Site: www.linuxtechnologies.co.uk |
| Linux Technologies PGP Key: 0x3DE51D89 |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Linux and Open Source Solutions |
+==============================================================+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/0aCYS94XrT3lHYkRAtujAJ905yf7HxlgFvj2+1HvFtqTnzmekQCgmqGh
cgmOw184082hekcBGOZrUks=
=SpQo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: