Home › Forums › OS X Server and Client Discussion › Mail › Sending mail with php via postfix to EIMS running on the same machine
- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 20 years, 5 months ago by
deverman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 30, 2006 at 5:30 am #366299
deverman
ParticipantHello,
I am running EIMS as my mail program on my Mac OS 10.4.6 Server for
email.I need to send email through the standard php mail command from my
php scripts because many scripts written by others use this command.
(Rewriting all the php apps written by third parties to uses another
mail library is not an option.)This forces me to use postfix to send the emails. I have already
tried the EiMS command line tool and this program is not up to the task.I had postfix configured properly as a “Null Client” so that postfix
delivers mail to another server and doesn’t try to deliver mail to
itself or listen for new mail coming in. I got the instructions for
the null client from here:http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html#null_client
This was working fine but I have changed my server to use open
directory and in the process, I had to change the hostname of my
server from shenzhenparty to shenzhenparty.com. My original server
name was not a fully qualified domain name and so postfix didn’t know
it was sending mail to the same server. Now postfix is able to detect
a mail loop again.You can take a look at the log below:
———-
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/cleanup[23298]: 506E15F725C:
message-id=<20060529063021.506E15F725C@shenzhenparty.com>
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/qmgr[23034]: 506E15F725C:
from=, size=868, nrcpt=2 (queue active)
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/error[23301]: 506E15F725C:
to=, relay=none, delay=0,
status=bounced (local delivery is disabled)
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/smtp[23302]: warning: host
mail.shenzhenparty.com[210.17.235.228] greeted me with my own
hostname shenzhenparty.com
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/smtp[23302]: warning: host
mail.shenzhenparty.com[210.17.235.228] replied to HELO/EHLO with my
own hostname shenzhenparty.com
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/smtp[23302]: 506E15F725C:
to=, relay=mail.shenzhenparty.com
[210.17.235.228], delay=0, status=bounced (mail for
mail.shenzhenparty.com loops back to myself)
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/cleanup[23298]: 5B1C55F725E:
message-id=<20060529063021.5B1C55F725E@shenzhenparty.com>
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/qmgr[23034]: 5B1C55F725E:
from=<>, size=2809, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/qmgr[23034]: 506E15F725C: removed
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/error[23305]: 5B1C55F725E:
to=, relay=none, delay=0, status=bounced
(local delivery is disabled)
May 29 14:30:21 shenzhenparty postfix/qmgr[23034]: 5B1C55F725E: removed
———-Postfix seems to have an option for everything, doesn’t it have an
option to disable this loop back check? i have looked through all the
options and have not found a way. Below is my postfix configuration
in case that helps:shenzhenparty:~ deverman$ postconf -n
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix
debug_peer_level = 2
html_directory = no
inet_interfaces = localhost
local_transport = error:local delivery is disabled
mail_owner = postfix
mailbox_size_limit = 0
mailq_path = /usr/bin/mailq
manpage_directory = /usr/share/man
mydomain = shenzhenparty.com
mydomain_fallback = localhost
mynetworks_style = host
myorigin = $mydomain
newaliases_path = /usr/bin/newaliases
queue_directory = /private/var/spool/postfix
readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix
relayhost = mail.shenzhenparty.com
sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix/examples
sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail
setgid_group = postdrop
smtpd_tls_key_file =
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550As postfix has given me a lot of trouble on this issue I don’t see
switching from EIMS to postfix as a viable option just to get php
emails working on a Mac OS X Server. I also do not want to use an
additional IP just to get emails working either because if I have to
do that I might as well move to a managed solution on a linux box.I hope someone has a suggestion. Thanks
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.