Sendmail Ignoring virtusertable

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

Following upgrade to FreeBSD v10.1, sendmail seems to ignore the /etc/mail/virtusertable. I expected that by moving my previous working configuration files to the v10.1 platform, all would be functional as previously installed. When I try to send an eMail document to my alias, Ron.Wingfield, the system fails with the following message:
Code:
[INDENT]An error occurred while sending mail. The mail server responded:  5.1.1 <Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net>... User unknown. Please check the message recipient Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net and try again.[/INDENT]
To my knowledge, I have run the requisite makes and restarts, etc. Nothing seems to work. I can only send-from and receive-to my actual FreeBSD user id, rtwingfield.

There are several configuration file relationships that I do not understand.

In the base distribution there is no sendmail.mc file; however, there is a sendmail.cf that contains the following admonishment:
Code:
DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE!  Only edit the source .mc file.
. . .so where/what is the "source" file?

Also, I don't understand why there are files such as freebsd.cf and freebsd.mc. You will not find these files mentioned in the following publication:

sendmail, 4th Edition

By Bryan Costales, Claus Assmann, George Jansen, Gregory Neil Shapiro
Publisher: O'Reilly Media
Final Release Date: October 2007
Pages: 1312​

Regardless, I installed the missing file from a previous working version of the sendmail.mc file, ran make, service sendmail restart, etc., yet no joy.

There seems to be a break in the alias scenario. Can anyone suggest what I may be missing here?
 

wblock@

Beastie Himself
Developer

Reaction score: 3,649
Messages: 13,850

The files are in /etc/mail. The first time make is run, it creates a file named hostname.mc. Then you can edit that file, then finally build it and install it with make all install restart.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

The files are in /etc/mail. The first time make is run, it creates a file named hostname.mc. Then you can edit that file, then finally build it and install it with make all install restart.
Hello Warren, thanks for the quick reply.

Yes, I know that the files are in /etc/mail. What I'm unclear on is (per your suggestion) the need to run make all install restart. This sounds like an install from the ports? Since sendmail is included in the base, why is this necessary? Sendmail is running and I can send and receive eMail as long as my FreeBSD userid, rtwingfield, is used. Also, I did not/do not have a hostname.mc file in my old installation; however, there is a local-host-names file that I installed from the earlier system.

Just for chuckles, I ran a make all, but it does not create a hostname.mc file.

*** EDIT *** What I now understand is that the created file is your-server's-hostname.mc (as per the rc.conf file) . . .not literally "hostname"

The result of make install was:
Code:
install -m 444 archaxis.net.cf /etc/mail/sendmail.cf
install -m 444 archaxis.net.submit.cf /etc/mail/submit.cf
Back to the previous diagnostic,
Code:
[INDENT]An error occurred while sending mail. The mail server responded:  5.1.1 <Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net>... User unknown. Please check the message recipient Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net and try again.[/INDENT]
The system should resolve my aliased name, Ron.Wingfield, and point to my user name, rtwingfield, but instead is trying to validate my alias as a user that does not exist.

FYI, here is a sample from the /etc/virtusertable file (that has always worked before):

Code:
root@Archaxis.net  root
rtwingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Ron.Wingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Ron.Wingfield@ClassXBoats.com  rtwingfield
rjohnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield@archaxis.net
Robert.Johnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield@archaxis.net
@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield

. . .for some reason, all aliased recipients are reported as "user unknown".
 
Last edited:

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,269
Messages: 3,312

freebsd.mc and freebsd.cf are custom files for freebsd FreeBSD and override the /mail/sendmail ones. If you are using the default install of sendmail, and then re-install it, maybe even update it(?), some of the files in /etc/mail get reset to the default. That is why it's better to install sendmail from ports where that won't happen.

Sorry. I may have read your original question too quickly but I'm getting called away.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

freebsd.mc and freebsd.cf are custom files for freebsd FreeBSD and override the /mail/sendmail ones. If you are using the default install of sendmail, and then re-install it, maybe even update it(?), some of the files in /etc/mail get reset to the default. That is why it's better to install sendmail from ports where that won't happen.

Sorry. I may have read your original question too quickly but I'm getting called away.
A reinstall from ports will not be a problem, but may take some time. Will do.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

. . .well, I just ran make install for sendmail. It created the /usr/ports/mail/sendmail/work files but did not create the /etc/mail system. What happened . . .where did the (should have been) installed files go?
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,269
Messages: 3,312

Re-installing was not what I meant. What I thought you said was you re-installed and the files changed. However, if you still have the "work" file in mail/sendmail, that means the installation didn't complete!

In that same location, do make clean and then install again. Watch to make sure it says the installation says it is complete.
 

wblock@

Beastie Himself
Developer

Reaction score: 3,649
Messages: 13,850

What I'm unclear on is (per your suggestion) the need to run make all install restart. This sounds like an install from the ports?
It is not. make(1) can be used for many things. Here it is used to build configuration files for the Sendmail included in base. The install target installs the built files, and restart restarts Sendmail.

Confusing this with a ports install will only complicate the process.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

Reinstalling was not what I meant. What I thought you said was you reinstalled and the files changed. However, if you still have the "work" file in /mail/sendmail, that means the installation didn't complete!

In that same location, do make clean and then install again. Watch to make sure it says the installation says it is complete.
I do understand the steps regarding, make, make install, and make clean. I rarely ever run make install clean in one fell swoop. I sometimes leave the work files around for some time. Actually, I had considered starting with a clean page and installing sendmail from the ports. And BTW, I moved /etc/mail to /etc/mail.bu; therefore, I still have the original files plus modifications based on my previous working sendmail installation.

Just for the sake of debate, I'll remove the work files and run make deinstall, make, followed by make install.

. . .(some time passes), and I just completed the "reinstall" from ports, and the system did not create /etc/mail.

I'm beginning to think that there is something seriously broken in this port, i.e., the Makefile.

And another thing, with /etc/mail moved to /etc/mail.bu, and sendmail stopped, I was still receiving eMail ???

. . .(some more time passes), and I copied /etc/mail.bu to /etc/mail -- in other words, I put it back. Then I ran make deinstall once again followed by make and make install . . .all the time watching the progress messages, etc.

Yet again, the /etc/mail files were not created.

. . .need to respond to wblock's comments.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

It is not. make(1) can be used for many things. Here it is used to build configuration files for the Sendmail included in base. The install target installs the built files, and restart restarts Sendmail.

Confusing this with a ports install will only complicate the process.
I would like to install sendmail with a "clean page" from the ports . . .as if it were not installed. I'm wary of the version/package as installed with the FreeBSD v10.1 RELEASE base. The Handbook only covers the subject with one page. I would like to be able to follow the O'Reilly book and not have to read between the lines to understand why there are files named freebsd.this and freebsd.that.

Yes, I do know that make can be run from within the /etc/mail directory to recreate or otherwise update the various configuration files, etc. Within /etc/mail, execution of make points to the /etc/mail/Makefile (BTW, I've run sendmail since probably 2002?).

Again, I don't have any emotional reservation attempting to install sendmail from the ports. Problem is, the /usr/ports/mail/sendmail " make" fails to create the /etc/mail file system.

This is a very simplified, abbreviated description of the way I understand the make system:

Given five objects (either source code, executable scripts or binaries, etc.), a b c d e, if any of them are nonexistent or touched, then the top-level make system will attempt to create or recreate the object.
. . .at least that's the way I've always coded Makefiles. So, I'm cd'ing to /usr/ports/mail/sendmail, executing make, followed by make install, and the files, /etc/mail are not created.

Very frustrating!

I think that I will restore the version that I configured from the FreeBSD v10.1 RELEASE base and try to determine what is wrong with the aliasing scenario.

Sincerely, thanks to all for your suggestions.
 

wblock@

Beastie Himself
Developer

Reaction score: 3,649
Messages: 13,850

Applications built from ports generally expect configuration files in /usr/local/. In this case, I'd expect them to be in /usr/local/etc/mail. But FreeBSD's base version of Sendmail is usually very up to date, so I don't bother running the ports version.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

Applications built from ports generally expect configuration files in /usr/local/. In this case, I'd expect them to be in /usr/local/etc/mail. But FreeBSD's base version of Sendmail is usually very up to date, so I don't bother running the ports version.
I would have to concur, but something is amiss, I suspect, in my configuration. Some little nuance in the newer version must have changed. I'll keep looking and when and if I find a solution, then I'll report.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

I cannot understand why sendmail is ignoring the virtusertable.db file. This is the content of the database:

Code:
root@Archaxis.net  root
rtwingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
ron.wingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Ron.Wingfield@ClassXBoats.com  rtwingfield
rjohnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Robert.Johnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield

I have carefully remade the suite of objects, but when I use a recipient address as indicated in the snip below, the system seems to simply ignore "[FONT=Courier New]rjohnson[/FONT]@archaxis.net"

upload_2015-5-20_15-58-17.png


The system should examine the virtusertable.db and match the key for the recipient but apparently that is not happening. (This previously worked with sendmail v8.12.8p1.)

BTW, this is sendmail v8.14.9 as distributed with FreeBSD v10.1-RELEASE. (I did NOT pursue installing from the ports, but rather modified the configuration of the dist. as required.)

Has anyone encountered this problem? What to do?

Perhaps I should ask this question regarding this caveat form the comments in the virtusertable source code:

Code:
# Map one or all usernames at a source hostname to a specific (or the same)
# username at another target hostname.  Remember to add the source hostname
# to /etc/mail/local-host-names so that sendmail will accept mail for the
# source hostname.

. . .what is the "[FONT=Courier New]source hostname[/FONT]"? Is this source the originator of the inbound document? If so, then how would you know from what source it originated? It could be from anywhere.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,269
Messages: 3,312

Are you rebuilding the table after you edit it? Easiest way is make all (cause I can't remember the command to just build that).
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

Yes, I am using the makefile system as recommended by Warren B.
The files are in /etc/mail. The first time make is run, it creates a file named hostname.mc. Then you can edit that file, then finally build it and install it with make all install restart.
In the past, I have used makemap btree virtusertable.db < virtusertable
but I have learned from the code in /etc/mail/freebsd.mc, that the database is hashed as per
(it's magic):
Code:
 FEATURE(virtusertable, `hash -o /etc/mail/virtusertable')
The result is that the resultant object from the hash is larger than that from the makemap btree scenario. [SIZE=2](. . .don't know what the significance is, but I do know that a btree is condusive to a binary search, which is fast)[/SIZE] Sort of troubling, but I've chosen to run with the embedded hash that is invoked (somewhere) in the make process.

The make file seems to be aware of anything that is touched and will remake whatever has changed . . .as it should. Now that I've got my head wrapped around the make scenario, it is a fairly automated process. Unfortunately, the virtusertable.db seems to be ignored as per my (flawed?) configuration.

This is/was the code in my previous working sendmail installation:

Code:
# /etc/mail/local-host-names
# Fri May 31 13:46:42 CDT 2002 -- rtwingfield
# When updated, sendmail(8) must be restarted!
# e.g., sendmail -bd -q15m

# Updated Tue Jun 02, 2009 -- rtwingfield

archaxis.net
ns1.archaxis.net
ns2.archaxis.net
ClassXBoats.com
SmithsAirport.com
. . .so this is why I'm puzzled that the new version seems to be broken.
 

wblock@

Beastie Himself
Developer

Reaction score: 3,649
Messages: 13,850

That is not a virtusertable. Looking at /etc/mail/Makefile shows that the table is built along with other "maps" when make maps is given. Note that is not a "makemaps" command, but make(1) followed by a separate maps target.
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

That is not a virtusertable. Looking at /etc/mail/Makefile shows that the table is built along with other "maps" when make maps is given. Note that is not a "makemaps" command, but make(1) followed by a separate maps target.
That is not a virtusertable.
. . .are you thinking that the code displayed in my previous post was presented as the virtusertable? Look at the comment in the code, it is from the /etc/mail/local-host-names (. . .thought that would be obvious.)

This is the content of the virtusertable:
Code:
root@Archaxis.net  root
rtwingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
ron.wingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Ron.Wingfield@ClassXBoats.com  rtwingfield
rjohnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Robert.Johnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
. . .and it previously worked successfully with sendmail v8.12.8p1

Yes, the makemap command is old . . .from earlier versions and is what I used with the sendmail v8.12.8p1 version . . .and as I mentioned, I am NOT using it with this Sendmail v8.14.9 version.

For chuckles and grins, I just ran make maps and this is the results:
Code:
root@alpha:/etc/mail # make maps
root@alpha:/etc/mail #
Notice that nothing was made because all objects are up-to-date . . . .not surprised because simply calling make will rattle through the entire makefile and remake whatever has been touch (or deleted, etc.). This can be demonstrated by simply deleting or removing one of the .db databases and it will be recreated.

As evidence, I just waxed the virtusertable.db (by moving it to virtusertable.bu ) and simply called make with the following results:
Code:
root@alpha:/etc/mail # make
/usr/sbin/makemap hash virtusertable.db < virtusertable
[INDENT]chmod 0640 virtusertable.db[/INDENT]
. . .so as you can see, it remade the virtusertable.db (. . .as it should.)​

Also note that the .bu and .db objects are the same size; therefore, assumed to be identical.
Code:
128 -rw-r-----  1 root  wheel  131072 May 20 16:46 virtusertable.bu
128 -rw-r-----  1 root  wheel  131072 May 20 20:58 virtusertable.db

I still don't think that when receiving inbound mail, that sendmail is examining the virtusertable.
Documentation states that
It is consulted after aliases but before mailertable.
This just doesn't appear to be happening.

*** EDIT *** . . .and it just occurred to me that perhaps the system is not ignoring the virtusertable.db, but rather not seeing the local-host-names file.



*** EDIT *** . . .I just looked at the ports latest distinfo version of sendmail and it is v8.15.1.
Code:
SHA256 (sendmail.8.15.1.tar.gz) = ed1f9e0f2a1a58c9ff94950264a2fc186d6fd237bac66b175d79a2b89a950746
[INDENT]SIZE (sendmail.8.15.1.tar.gz) = 2186562[/INDENT]
The version distributed with FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE is 8.14.9:
Code:
root@alpha:/usr/ports/mail/sendmail # sendmail -d0.4 -bv root
Version 8.14.9
 Compiled with: DNSMAP LOG MAP_REGEX MATCHGECOS MILTER MIME7TO8 MIME8TO7
  NAMED_BIND NETINET NETINET6 NETUNIX NEWDB NIS PIPELINING SCANF
  STARTTLS TCPWRAPPERS USERDB XDEBUG
Canonical name: alpha.archaxis.net
 UUCP nodename: alpha.archaxis.net
  a.k.a.: [66.138.104.73]
  a.k.a.: [66.138.104.76]
  a.k.a.: localhost.archaxis.net
  a.k.a.: [192.168.1.73]
  a.k.a.: [IPv6:::1]
  a.k.a.: [IPv6:fe80::1]
  a.k.a.: [127.0.0.1]
It has been suggested to deinstall and reinstall from the ports. Could this help?
 

usdmatt

Daemon

Reaction score: 522
Messages: 1,402

For a lot of posts this doesn't really seem to be getting anywhere. Firstly on a 10.1 system I don't think re-installing a slightly newer version of Sendmail from posts is really required. It should work perfectly with the version in base. Also I don't really like capitals in email configuration but I'll ignore that for the time being.

Firstly, you should have your domain name in /etc/mail/local-host-names. Without that, it will only accept email when the right hand side of the address matches your hostname.

/etc/mail/local-host-names
Code:
archaxis.net
Then, add the addresses to the virtusertable. Personally I recommend returning an error for the catch-all instead of accepting it, otherwise if someone spams everything@your-domain.com, you get all of them.

/etc/mail/virtusertable
Code:
@archaxis.net                       error:nouser User unknown
ron.wingfield@archaxis.net          rtwingfield
Rebuild the configuration files if needed
Code:
make install restart (inside /etc/mail)
Now, the next thing to do before going off to send test emails is actually check Sendmail to see what it's going to do with those email addresses. Run the following and post the output:
Code:
sendmail -bv ron.wingfield@archaxis.net
If it's actually working correctly, it should tell you that email address is delivered locally to user rtwingfield. If not, then something is screwed up somewhere. I'm assuming Sendmail is fairly standard in configuration otherwise, and you haven't messed with it too much?
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

My proven complement working for years in previous sendmail 8.12.8 version:/etc/mail/local-host-names
Code:
Archaxis.net
alpha.archaxis.net
#ns1.archaxis.net
#ns2.archaxis.net
ClassXBoats.com
SmithsAirport.com
My proven complement working for years in previous sendmail 8.12.8 version:
/etc/mail/virtusertable
Code:
root@Archaxis.net  root
rtwingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
ron.wingfield@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Ron.Wingfield@ClassXBoats.com  rtwingfield
rjohnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
Robert.Johnson@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
@Archaxis.net  rtwingfield
RE:
Code:
@archaxis.net  rtwingfield
. . .just a test to see if any alias is/are delivered.
Remade the system . . .yet again:
make install restart (inside /etc/mail)
. . .have done this innumerable times.
Yet again . . .test per your suggestion, but for all cases in the local-hosts-names file:
(All results flagged as deliverable.)

Code:
root@alpha:/etc/namedb # sendmail -bv ron.wingfield@archaxis.net
ron.wingfield@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
root@alpha:/etc/namedb # sendmail -bv wingfield@archaxis.net
wingfield@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
root@alpha:/etc/namedb # sendmail -bv Ron.Wingfield@ClassXBoats.com
Ron.Wingfield@ClassXBoats.com... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
root@alpha:/etc/namedb # sendmail -bv rjohnsom@archaxis.net
rjohnsom@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
root@alpha:/etc/namedb # sendmail -bv Robert.Johnson@archaxis.net
Robert.Johnson@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
. . .also this: (Mailer test also flagged as deliverable.)

Code:
root@alpha:/etc/namedb # sendmail -d0.4 -bv ron.wingfield@archaxis.net
Version 8.14.9
Compiled with: DNSMAP LOG MAP_REGEX MATCHGECOS MILTER MIME7TO8 MIME8TO7
  NAMED_BIND NETINET NETINET6 NETUNIX NEWDB NIS PIPELINING SCANF
  STARTTLS TCPWRAPPERS USERDB XDEBUG
Canonical name: alpha.archaxis.net
UUCP nodename: alpha.archaxis.net
  a.k.a.: [66.138.104.73]
  a.k.a.: [66.138.104.76]
  a.k.a.: localhost.archaxis.net
  a.k.a.: [192.168.1.73]
  a.k.a.: [IPv6:::1]
  a.k.a.: [IPv6:fe80::1]
  a.k.a.: [127.0.0.1]

============ SYSTEM IDENTITY (after readcf) ============
 (short domain name) $w = alpha
 (canonical domain name) $j = alpha.archaxis.net
 (subdomain name) $m = archaxis.net
 (node name) $k = alpha.archaxis.net
========================================================

ron.wingfield@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
Problem still exists:
upload_2015-5-21_15-57-1.png


And finally, I agree, too many posts for no solution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

usdmatt

Daemon

Reaction score: 522
Messages: 1,402

# sendmail -bv rjohnsom@archaxis.net
rjohnsom@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
Hmm, so according to sendmail the address is deliverable locally, but you're getting "User unknown" when emailing it?

What appears in /var/log/maillog file when you send a test email? As soon as the server receives your test email, a couple of lines should appear in there. One detailing where the message came from, and another detailing what sendmail did with it.

Also what are you testing with. Is that a webmail interface running on the same server or something completely separate?
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

I am using Thunderbird 31.7.0 on a Windows-7 platform attached to the LAN.

This morning, I've run the following log examinations and tests:

The following is the last log in the /var/log/maillog file, sent by the OS ([FONT=Courier New]root[/FONT]), this morning, May 22 03:01:32 . . .one of the daily status summary reports.

Code:
May 22 03:01:32 <2.6> alpha sendmail[8954]: t4M81WTA008954: from=root, size=1680, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<201505220801.t4M81WTA008954@alpha.archaxis.net>, relay=root@localhost
May 22 03:01:32 <2.6> alpha sendmail[8956]: STARTTLS=server, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1], version=TLSv1/SSLv3, verify=NO, cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256/256
May 22 03:01:32 <2.6> alpha sendmail[8954]: STARTTLS=client, relay=[127.0.0.1], version=TLSv1/SSLv3, verify=FAIL, cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256/256
May 22 03:01:32 <2.6> alpha sendmail[8956]: t4M81W7e008956: from=<root@alpha.archaxis.net>, size=2016, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<201505220801.t4M81WTA008954@alpha.archaxis.net>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=IPv4, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1]
May 22 03:01:32 <2.6> alpha sendmail[8954]: t4M81WTA008954: to=root, ctladdr=root (0/0), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay, pri=31680, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (t4M81W7e008956 Message accepted for delivery)
May 22 03:01:32 <2.6> alpha sendmail[8957]: t4M81W7e008956: to=rtwingfield@archaxis.net, ctladdr=<root@alpha.archaxis.net> (0/0), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=local, pri=32362, relay=local, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent
Code:
# date
Fri May 22 07:45:05 CDT 2015
# sendmail -bv rjohnsom@archaxis.net  . . .this is an alias in the virtusertable.
rjohnsom@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
. . .and not sent or delivered.

Code:
# date
Fri May 22 07:52:03 CDT 2015
# sendmail -bv rtwingfield@archaxis.net  . . .this is my simple address (not an alias).
rtwingfield@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
. . .was sent and delivered to my Thunderbird in-box.

Nothing logged in /var/log/maillog for either example. . .?

This rule in /etc/syslog.conf:

Code:
mail.info  [FILE]/var/log/maillog[/FILE]
. . .changing to:
Code:
mail.*  [FILE]/var/log/maillog[/FILE]
Code:
# service syslogd restart
Stopping syslogd.
Waiting for PIDS: 541.
Starting syslogd.
# service sendmail restart
Code:
# date
Fri May 22 08:37:30 CDT 2015
# sendmail -bv rtwingfield@archaxis.net
rtwingfield@archaxis.net... deliverable: mailer local, user rtwingfield
. . .and still nothing logged in /var/log/maillog !!!

Finally . . .thinking about your question regarding a web-based client, I do have a Gmail account and tried sending to [FONT=Courier New]Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net[/FONT] with the following results:
Conversely, when addressed to my non-aliased address, then I did receive the document.
Also . . .yet again, nothing logged in /var/log/maillog?

upload_2015-5-22_10-11-34.png
 

usdmatt

Daemon

Reaction score: 522
Messages: 1,402

Seeing nothing in the logs suggests to me that this server isn't actually getting the messages...

If I try and deliver mail to Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net, the following happens:

There are no MX records for archaxis.net, so it uses the A record which is x.y.z.73.
(This is the same address as shown in the error report from Google)

Upon connecting to this IP address I get a connection to a server claiming to be bravo.archaxis.net.
This server is running Sendmail 8.14.3 and returns the "User unknown" message for the above email address.

Code:
# telnet x.y.z.73 25
Trying x.y.z.73...
Connected to adsl-x-y-z-73.dsl.ltrkar.swbell.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 bravo.archaxis.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.14.3/8.14.3; Fri, 22 May 2015 10:27:44 -0500 (CDT)
mail from: test@test.com
250 2.1.0 test@test.com... Sender ok
rcpt to: Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net
550 5.1.1 Ron.Wingfield@archaxis.net... User unknown
quit
221 2.0.0 bravo.archaxis.net closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
The hostname of the server you are configuring in the posts seems to be alpha, not bravo?
 
OP
OP
rtwingfield

rtwingfield

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 281

My wife sent me a similar message 2 days ago via Gmail with the same rejected alpah/bravo scenario. I just assumed that DNS couldn't lookup alpha, so it "rolled" over to bravo. Stand by, I'm going to do something with the zone file.
 
Top