I keep getting this error, and I have no clue where it comes from. I have no localhost in my fetchmailrc file, all I have in main.cf is: mydestination = paulandcilla.homelinux.org, localhost
here is some of the entries in /var/log/mail.err:
Dec 7 16:00:38 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:00:40 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:00:43 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:10:50 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:10:56 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:21:05 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:21:07 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:21:08 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:31:18 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:31:19 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:41:25 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:41:26 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused. Dec 7 16:41:27 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused.
all of the mail SENDING on this box comes out of either kmail or thunderbird via my domain host, secure login.
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On 2010-12-07 4:45 PM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I keep getting this error, and I have no clue where it comes from. I have no localhost in my fetchmailrc file, all I have in main.cf is: mydestination = paulandcilla.homelinux.org, localhost
And you think this is dovecot related because... ?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 12/07/2010 04:58 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I keep getting this error, and I have no clue where it comes from. I
have no localhost in my fetchmailrc file, all I have in main.cf is: mydestination = paulandcilla.homelinux.org, localhost
And you think this is dovecot related because... ?
no, I'm not sure what it is related to. I run dovecot, and postfix.
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 17:16 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On 12/07/2010 04:58 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I keep getting this error, and I have no clue where it comes from. I
have no localhost in my fetchmailrc file, all I have in main.cf is: mydestination = paulandcilla.homelinux.org, localhost
And you think this is dovecot related because... ?
no, I'm not sure what it is related to. I run dovecot, and postfix.
The log snippet clearly shows that it is fetchmail generating the message. For some reason, it cannot connect to the localhost IPv6 address for delivery via SMTP.
I believe the solution is either (a) to fix your fetchmail conf, or (b) to have postfix listen on IPv6 addresses.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
The log snippet clearly shows that it is fetchmail generating the message. For some reason, it cannot connect to the localhost IPv6 address for delivery via SMTP.
I believe the solution is either (a) to fix your fetchmail conf, or (b) to have postfix listen on IPv6 addresses.
the op posted this on the postfix list just now and was advised to check that postfix is configured to listen on ipv6. something along like having inet_protocols = all in /etc/postfix/main.cf should do it.
jamieOn Tue, 2010-12-07 at 23:31 +0000, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
The log snippet clearly shows that it is fetchmail generating the message. For some reason, it cannot connect to the localhost IPv6 address for delivery via SMTP.
I believe the solution is either (a) to fix your fetchmail conf, or (b) to have postfix listen on IPv6 addresses.
the op posted this on the postfix list just now and was advised to check that postfix is configured to listen on ipv6. something along like having inet_protocols = all in /etc/postfix/main.cf should do it.
*nod* Back those days I opted for the fetchmail "use IPv4 localhost" fix, to avoid a single local Received header showing an IPv6 address. :)
Thanks for the note. Although I'm not happy to see the OP used the shotgun approach to get help...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
*nod* Back those days I opted for the fetchmail "use IPv4 localhost" fix, to avoid a single local Received header showing an IPv6 address. :)
me too :-)
Thanks for the note. Although I'm not happy to see the OP used the shotgun approach to get help...
indeed but it's not then end of the world. good job there are nice folk on this list to help out. jamie
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 00:02 +0000, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
*nod* Back those days I opted for the fetchmail "use IPv4 localhost" fix, to avoid a single local Received header showing an IPv6 address. :)
me too :-)
Thanks for the note. Although I'm not happy to see the OP used the shotgun approach to get help...
indeed but it's not then end of the world. good job there are nice folk on this list to help out.
True. And as one probably could gather from my first response, I prefer to just solve the issue, even if the choice of list was misguided. Guess I mostly got annoyed by the repeated claim of not using IPv6, despite the clear evidence.
Also, regarding dovecot, I am mostly a lurker -- usually chiming in in related though actually off-topic issues. ;)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
On 12/07/2010 07:32 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
True. And as one probably could gather from my first response, I prefer to just solve the issue, even if the choice of list was misguided. Guess I mostly got annoyed by the repeated claim of not using IPv6, despite the clear evidence. but I followed ( long ago) a HOW-TO disable IPv6 in debian here: http://www.karkomaonline.com/index.php/2009/04/how-to-disable-ipv6-in-debian...
and added these 2 lines to /etc/modprobe.d/aliases.conf alias net-pf-10 off alias ipv6 off
and commented the appropriate lines in /etc/hosts. SO, again, I am not sure how IPv6 is functioning on my computer..
Also, regarding dovecot, I am mostly a lurker -- usually chiming in in related though actually off-topic issues. ;)
and I appreciate the help, thank you very much!
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On 2010-12-07 7:02 PM, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
Thanks for the note. Although I'm not happy to see the OP used the shotgun approach to get help...
indeed but it's not then end of the world. good job there are nice folk on this list to help out.
The point is if you continue using the shotgun approach, you will quickly wear out your welcome and any good will others may be predisposed to provide.
Also - please do not delete - or please properly configure your mail reader to add - the attribution line (who said what when) when replying to posts.
--
Best regards,
Charles
The point is if you continue using the shotgun approach, you will quickly wear out your welcome and any good will others may be predisposed to provide.
I'm well aware of what the point is - i think it's ok to give people the benefit of the doubt when they are new and trying to work things. Being nice and friendly never hurt anyone did it.
Also - please do not delete - or please properly configure your mail reader to add - the attribution line (who said what when) when replying to posts.
I delete it because I don't see the need to have it there - it's my preference to do that. I'm sorry if that inconveniences you in any way but I fail to see how something so trivial would compel someone to complain about it.
On 2010-12-08 8:54 AM, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
The point is if you continue using the shotgun approach, you will quickly wear out your welcome and any good will others may be predisposed to provide.
I'm well aware of what the point is - i think it's ok to give people the benefit of the doubt when they are new and trying to work things. Being nice and friendly never hurt anyone did it.
Of course not, I didn't say it did.
This is irrelevant though. People should always be encouraged to do things the right way, and cross-posting the same Off-Topic question to multiple support lists - especially high volume lists like the postfix (and sometimes the dovecot) list(s) is not a very nice thing to do - some would call it lazy and/or arrogant.
Also - please do not delete - or please properly configure your mail reader to add - the attribution line (who said what when) when replying to posts.
I delete it because I don't see the need to have it there
You haven't thought things through. The need is to prevent thread participants from confusing who said what when multiple people are participating - which is precisely what happened here (I confused you with the OP).
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:23:18PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
This is irrelevant though. People should always be encouraged to do things the right way, and cross-posting the same Off-Topic question to multiple support lists - especially high volume lists like the postfix (and sometimes the dovecot) list(s) is not a very nice thing to do - some would call it lazy and/or arrogant.
Point taken.
You haven't thought things through. The need is to prevent thread participants from confusing who said what when multiple people are participating - which is precisely what happened here (I confused you with the OP).
I understand. I will make sure I don't remove that information in future. Thank you for making me aware of that Marcus.
jamie On 2010-12-08 1:39 PM, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
I understand. I will make sure I don't remove that information in future. Thank you for making me aware of that Marcus.
oops, sorry not Marcus - Charles. I do apologise.
lol - no worries, I've been called *much* worse ;)
And thank *you* for being willing to reconsider. :)
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 12/08/2010 07:35 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
The point is if you continue using the shotgun approach, you will quickly wear out your welcome and any good will others may be predisposed to provide.
I try to lurk & read as much as I can before asking for help.
Also - please do not delete - or please properly configure your mail reader to add - the attribution line (who said what when) when replying to posts.
I use thunderbird, and it puts those little ">" marks prepending the lines that I am replying to.
I try to cut out extra lines, sometimes it might make it harder to follow, sorry!
thanks again for the help.
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On 2010-12-08 9:01 AM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On 12/08/2010 07:35 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
The point is if you continue using the shotgun approach, you will quickly wear out your welcome and any good will others may be predisposed to provide.
I try to lurk & read as much as I can before asking for help.
I understand, but the point, again, is you not only asked on the wrong list, you asked on more than one (called cross-posting)...
It isn't the end of the world, that's how people learn is by making mistakes, but you may not have realized your mistake unless someone points it out... ;)
Also - please do not delete - or please properly configure your mail reader to add - the attribution line (who said what when) when replying to posts.
I use thunderbird, and it puts those little ">" marks prepending the lines that I am replying to.
I try to cut out extra lines, sometimes it might make it harder to follow, sorry!
Don't be - it wasn't you, it was Jamie - and trimming posts of irrelevant stuff is encouraged.
Had Jamie *not* done so this confusion would have been avoided (I confused him with you and you wrongly concluded that my response was aimed at you)...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 16:58 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-12-07 4:45 PM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I keep getting this error, and I have no clue where it comes from. I have no localhost in my fetchmailrc file, all I have in main.cf is: mydestination = paulandcilla.homelinux.org, localhost
And you think this is dovecot related because... ?
*grin*
Dec 7 16:00:38 paulandcilla fetchmail[16761]: connection to localhost:smtp [::1/25] failed: Connection refused.
Even though this *really* is not related to dovecot at all, while we're here, I might as well try to help nonetheless -- failing with an IPv6 address does look familiar. I don't recall the log messages, since I mostly debugged with fetchmail directly.
The below fetchmailrc settings, including the comment, are directly scraped from a machine I set up for a friend a while ago...
defaults smtphost 127.0.0.1 smtpaddress localhost
# Need the smtp settings above, to get rid of some warnings due to trying the # IPv6 localhost address first. Or to inject IPv6 addresses in the Received # headers, if enabled in postfix. # In short: Do use IPv4, but still append localhost rather than the bare IP as # the domain, when submitting via SMTP locally. *sigh*
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
On 12/07/2010 05:25 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
here, I might as well try to help nonetheless -- failing with an IPv6 address does look familiar. I don't recall the log messages, since I mostly debugged with fetchmail directly.
I have never used IPv6, never set it up, I don't think my router can handle it..
The below fetchmailrc settings, including the comment, are directly scraped from a machine I set up for a friend a while ago...
defaults smtphost 127.0.0.1 smtpaddress localhost
thanks, I added those 2 lines, that seems to have fixed it! I guess eventually I'll have to add IPv6 capability, but that might mean I have to get a new router..
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 18:29 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On 12/07/2010 05:25 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
here, I might as well try to help nonetheless -- failing with an IPv6 address does look familiar. I don't recall the log messages, since I mostly debugged with fetchmail directly.
I have never used IPv6, never set it up, I don't think my router can handle it..
As I keep repeating -- your server is capable of IPv6, and it was a localhost only delivery. Your router is even less than irrelevant here.
The below fetchmailrc settings, including the comment, are directly scraped from a machine I set up for a friend a while ago...
defaults smtphost 127.0.0.1 smtpaddress localhost
thanks, I added those 2 lines, that seems to have fixed it!
Glad to hear. :)
I guess eventually I'll have to add IPv6 capability, but that might mean I have to get a new router..
This still is unrelated to your original problem.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i
participants (4)
-
Charles Marcus
-
Jamie Paul Griffin
-
Karsten Bräckelmann
-
Paul Cartwright