Accept Mail sent to IP address
Kai Bleek
Since our Server doesn't have a real Domain-Name yet (but I want to test the
Mail-System) I want sendmail to accept Mails sent to user@[IP]. Despite the
brackets sendmail tries a DNS-Query on the IP-Adress - without success and
thus refuses to either relay the Msg (which shouldn't happen anyway) or
accept the Msg (what in fact I want sendmail to do!).
Error-Msg:
Dec 30 21:22:18 panic sendmail[10630]: fBUKMH310628:
to=<user@[192\.168\.0\.96]>, ctladdr=<spellweaver@panic> (501/501),
delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, pri=30478,
relay=[192\.168\.0\.96], dsn=5.1.2, stat=Host unknown (Name server:
[192\.168\.0\.96]: host not found)
Dec 30 21:22:18 panic sendmail[10630]: fBUKMH310628: fBUKMI310630: DSN: Host
unknown (Name server: [192\.168\.0\.96]: host not found)
It would be great if someone could help me out!
Best wishes and thanx in advance,
Kai
Kai Bleek
I simply added:
# local-host-names - include all aliases for your machine here.
192.168.0.96
to /etc/local-host-names and restartet sendmail.
When sending to us...@192.168.0.96 (without the brackets) sendmail accepts
the Msg and delivers to the local mail-box...
"Kai Bleek" <pub...@spellweaver.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a0nt3v$b08$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
Claus Aßmann
> Dec 30 21:22:18 panic sendmail[10630]: fBUKMH310628:
> to=<user@[192\.168\.0\.96]>, ctladdr=<spellweaver@panic> (501/501),
Why do you put \ in front of the dots?
date | sendmail -v 'user@[192.168.0.96]'
should work just fine.
--
If you feel the urgent wish to send me a courtesy copy of a Usenet
posting, then make sure it's recognizable as such!
The FAQ: http://www.sendmail.org/faq/ Before you ask.
Kai Bleek
>
> Why do you put \ in front of the dots?
the backslash was added by sendmail (escaping the dot) - what I posted was
an exerpt from the logfile...
See 'the answer to myself' ;-) : the problem was solved, but anyway thanks
for your help!!!
Claus Aßmann
> > > to=<user@[192\.168\.0\.96]>, ctladdr=<spellweaver@panic> (501/501),
> > Why do you put \ in front of the dots?
> the backslash was added by sendmail (escaping the dot) - what I posted was
Unless you changed the source code: no, the backslash was
not added by sendmail.
> an exerpt from the logfile...
> See 'the answer to myself' ;-) : the problem was solved, but anyway thanks
> for your help!!!
Well, your solution is nice, but "wrong".
You may put as well
1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10
into class {w} and then us...@1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10 will
be recognized as local. That doesn't make
1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10
an IP address.
Kai Bleek
was
>
> Unless you changed the source code: no, the backslash was
> not added by sendmail.
well, then I cannot imagine where the "\" was added - I did NOT use it while
sending the mail...
> Well, your solution is nice, but "wrong".
>
> You may put as well
> 1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10
> into class {w} and then us...@1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10 will
> be recognized as local. That doesn't make
> 1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10
> an IP address.
It is absolutely clear, that I can define ANYTHING as local in class {w} -
but since I want to accept messages sent to an IP address it is exactly what
I was looking for. In case of defining 1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10 as local (to take
your example) I would also have to set up name-service pointing
1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10 to the IP address of my machine. In my situation routing
takes the mail to my machine and the definition in class {w} makes sendmail
accept it...
Regards,
Kai
Per Hedeland
<pub...@spellweaver.de> writes:
>> > the backslash was added by sendmail (escaping the dot) - what I posted
>was
>>
>> Unless you changed the source code: no, the backslash was
>> not added by sendmail.
>
>well, then I cannot imagine where the "\" was added - I did NOT use it while
>sending the mail...
Some broken software trying to be "helpful" perhaps - try it directly on
the commandline:
sendmail -bv 'user@[192.168.0.96]'
(*including* the quotes, of course).
>> Well, your solution is nice, but "wrong".
>>
>> You may put as well
>> 1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10
>> into class {w} and then us...@1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10 will
>> be recognized as local. That doesn't make
>> 1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10
>> an IP address.
>
>It is absolutely clear, that I can define ANYTHING as local in class {w} -
>but since I want to accept messages sent to an IP address it is exactly what
>I was looking for.
The point is, if you want to add an IP-address to class {w}, you need
the [brackets]. What you did by adding 192.168.0.96 without brackets was
defining another local host *name*, so it could have been anything, and
won't help other systems sending mail to yours by IP address. Of course
you'll probably find that [192.168.0.96] is already in class {w} if you
check:
echo '$=w' | sendmail -bt
- due to sendmail adding all local addresses automatically. (I.e. your
whole problem is probably the backslashes.)
> In case of defining 1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10 as local (to take
>your example) I would also have to set up name-service pointing
>1.2.3.4.5.6.8.9.10 to the IP address of my machine.
You would have a hard time doing that...
> In my situation routing
>takes the mail to my machine and the definition in class {w} makes sendmail
>accept it...
Only if other systems have special rules to route us...@192.168.0.96 to
your machine (or are broken).
--Per Hedeland
p...@bluetail.com
Kai Bleek
while
> >sending the mail...
>
> Some broken software trying to be "helpful" perhaps - try it directly on
> the commandline:
seems to be my e-mail-client being THAT helpful :-(
> sendmail -bv 'user@[192.168.0.96]'
works perfectly!
> echo '$=w' | sendmail -bt
works, too! ([IP] included...)
> - due to sendmail adding all local addresses automatically. (I.e. your
> whole problem is probably the backslashes.)
Correct - just my helpful client causing the troubles.
Many thanks for the help!!
Kai