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

Re: Can't post to list with mutt/exim4?!



On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 05:04:54PM +0100 or thereabouts, Marcus Blumhagen wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have got some trouble posting to this list using my prefered MUA mutt 
> (1.5.13-1.1) and MTA exim4-daemon-light (4.63-12).

I'm using pretty much the same setup, and didn't do anything special in regards
to the Debian User list, other than add my e-mail to the whitelist.

> Her some more info on my changes:
> 
> 1. changed the helo_data to reflect my private IP (helo=[192.168.178.20]) 
> as this is the helo sent by icedove, because I am behind a NAT firewall. 
> Actually I think this is also not correct, but it seems to work with 
> icedove:
> 
> 	'helo_data = [192.168.178.20]'
> 
> 2. removed the local "Message-ID" which exim added by setting:
> 	
> 	'headers_remove = "Message-ID"'


> So, after doing these changes the headers (the ones I consider relevant) 
> nearly look the same when sending a message with either icedove or 
> mutt/exim.
> 
> Is there something I missed? Am I completely going to the wrong direction, 
> or did I even overdo? Which additional information do I need to provide?

Yes, I think you're headed in the wrong direction. I never had to do any of the
things in your checklist. As the previous responder suggested, make sure that
mutt is sending out correctly to any e-mail address. I think once mutt sends
out correctly, then add yourself to the debian whitelist as suggested, should
be all that's required to send to the list successfully.

-- 
Regards
Stephen A.
                                                   
Encrypted/Signed e-mail accepted (GPG or PGP) -- Key ID: 978BA045
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"... an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often quite often
picturesque liar."
		-- Mark Twain
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: