Koozali.org: home of the SME Server

email issues

Offline sal1504

  • ***
  • 149
  • +0/-0
email issues
« on: October 26, 2010, 11:44:11 PM »
this one has me stumped. for the most part my email works great, but i do have a few customers that say the are getting their email back with the following

The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did not
report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it still
fails, contact your system administrator.
< smtp06.dot.gov #5.0.0 smtp; 5.4.7 - Delivery expired (message too
old) [Default] '[Errno 60] Operation timed out' (delivery attempts:

when i look at qpsmtpd i can see where the email has hit the server and has gone through most of the "hand shaking". the last two lines of the given email is

second to last response 2010-10-21  13:51:11.978756500  12697  354   go  ahead
last response  - 2010-10-21  21:42:12  12697   Connection Timed out

the server is sme 7.5.1. I have checked the email addresses and they are correct.

I have no idea if i need to look at spamassassin for the problem or look at clamav or if it is something else. I don't think it is a bug because it does not effect all email just a few. any pointers to where to look next will be greatly appreciated.



bill

Offline Stefano

  • *
  • 10,836
  • +2/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2010, 12:27:30 AM »
I suspect something on their side..
the connection from their server to yours simply die..

my 2€c

Offline sal1504

  • ***
  • 149
  • +0/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2010, 01:30:11 AM »
stefano

that's what i first thought but this person sends 6 to 7 emails a day to 5 different users. After doing some testing today here is another wrinkle. this customer can send to my personal email server (sme 7.4) without any problems. but if he sends to both my personal and my company email servers i get it with the 7.4 but not the 7.5.1. so i set them up as a user on my personal server and forwarded it to my company server and the email went through to the company server. any thoughts

bill

Offline janet

  • ****
  • 4,812
  • +0/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2010, 02:44:34 AM »
sal1504

The recipient mail server is refusing to accept mail from the sending server or from certain users, for unspecified reasons. The recipient mail server is behaving badly by not providing an adequate error message, but some systems do that.

Refer to the SME manual Appendix sections for some clues re RevDNS & other issues. Also check if server hosts are listed on RBL's eg spamhaus.

I am unsure which server is which and which users are where from your description, so cannot comment more specifically.
Please search before asking, an answer may already exist.
The Search & other links to useful information are at top of Forum.

Offline Knuddi

  • *
  • 540
  • +0/-0
    • http://www.scanmailx.com
Re: email issues
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2010, 10:57:33 PM »
Since you have a receiving server that fails you should take a look at those logs as well. 7.5.1 uses TLS per default - could that be related?

Offline CharlieBrady

  • *
  • 6,918
  • +3/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2010, 06:17:43 PM »
when i look at qpsmtpd i can see where the email has hit the server and has gone through most of the "hand shaking". the last two lines of the given email is

second to last response 2010-10-21  13:51:11.978756500  12697  354   go  ahead
last response  - 2010-10-21  21:42:12  12697   Connection Timed out

This indicates the remote end didn't complete sending the body of the message to your server. I think the most likely cause of that is a badly configured firewall between your server and theirs, which blocks ICMP. Read this:

http://www.phildev.net/mss/mss-talk.pdf

The problem manifests as short messages getting through to your system, but longer ones causing a stall/freeze. So, for instance, the SMTP ehlo, 'mail from', 'rcpt to' completing, but the data stalling and timing out.

If you have a firewall between your SME server and the Internet, check its configuration, or get rid of it entirely.

Offline Stefano

  • *
  • 10,836
  • +2/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2010, 06:43:23 PM »
good point Charlie

I remembere something about yum updates issue with some firewalls (it should be in the FAQ)

maybe that's the case

Offline cactus

  • *
  • 4,880
  • +3/-0
    • http://www.snetram.nl
Re: email issues
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2010, 07:26:28 PM »
I remembere something about yum updates issue with some firewalls (it should be in the FAQ)
I think your confusing proxies with gateways in this case.
Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than its worth ~ Baz Luhrmann - Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)

Offline Stefano

  • *
  • 10,836
  • +2/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2010, 09:59:51 PM »
I think your confusing proxies with gateways in this case.

I'm quite sure:
http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:Documentation:FAQ#General (regarding fortigate etc) ;-)

Offline CharlieBrady

  • *
  • 6,918
  • +3/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2010, 01:52:52 AM »
I'm quite sure:
http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:Documentation:FAQ#General (regarding fortigate etc) ;-)

That's hearsay. There are no references and no details.

Offline Stefano

  • *
  • 10,836
  • +2/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2010, 10:53:05 AM »
That's hearsay. There are no references and no details.

doh.. sorry Charlie, but I don't understand.. that note in wiki is supported by direct experience.. mine (I edited directly that note) and of other people..

IIRC there was also a bug about it :-)

Offline CharlieBrady

  • *
  • 6,918
  • +3/-0
Re: email issues
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2010, 01:24:18 PM »
doh.. sorry Charlie, but I don't understand.. that note in wiki is supported by direct experience..

There's not detail or references there which implicate Fortinet or Sonicwall appliances. Even if there were, it's quite possible that the issue with the appliances is with a proxy, as cactus suggests.