Skip to main content

New Mac OS X Server setup, when i send mail to gmail it goes straight to Spam. Why is that?

New Mac OS X Server setup, when i send mail to gmail it
goes straight to Spam. Why is that?



My
setup:
DNS - done (A records PTR are ok)
Mail Setup -
done
Webmail - done



Also there seems
to be a naming problem. They all come from me@server.domain.com instead of
me@domain.com. I must be missing an alias
somewhere.



I've read an entire book on setting
this up so don't throw stones :)

The GUI is masking a lot of this
up for me, so explanations via GUI are
appreciated.



/>

The headers look like
this:



Delivered-To:
MYACCOUNT@gmail.com



Received: by 10.142.252.19
with SMTP id
z19cs476033wfh;




 Mon, 3
Jan 2011 01:37:09 -0800
(PST)


Received: by
10.204.64.208 with SMTP id
f16mr8853543bki.61.1294047428115;




Mon, 03 Jan 2011 01:37:08 -0800
(PST)


Return-Path:




Received: from server.DOMAIN.com
([94.x.x.x])



 by mx.google.com
with ESMTP id c20si50831332bkc.48.2011.01.03.01.37.07;

Mon, 03 Jan
2011 01:37:07 -0800
(PST)


Received-SPF:
neutral (google.com: 94.x.x.x is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
domain of USER@www.DOMAIN.com)
client-ip=94.x.x.x;



Authentication-Results:
mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 94.x.x.x is neither permitted nor denied by best
guess record for domain of USER@www.DOMAIN.com)
smtp.mail=USER@www.DOMAIN.com




Received:
from localhost (localhost
[127.0.0.1])



by server.DOMAIN.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A19F60508;

Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:37:07 +0200
(EET)


X-Virus-Scanned:
amavisd-new at DOMAIN.com




Received:
from server.DOMAIN.com
([127.0.0.1])



by localhost
(server.DOMAIN.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)

with
ESMTP id mNgNTNwNhyP1; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:37:06 +0200
(EET)


Received: from
www.DOMAIN.com (localhost
[127.0.0.1])



by server.DOMAIN.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E69604F1;


Mon, 3 Jan 2011
11:37:06 +0200
(EET)


Received: from
10.0.1.3



 (SquirrelMail
authenticated user USER)

by www.DOMAIN.com with
HTTP;


Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:37:06
+0200


Message-ID:



Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:37:06
+0200



Subject:
test



From:
USER@www.DOMAIN.com




To:
MYACCOUNT@gmail.com



User-Agent:
SquirrelMail/1.4.20



MIME-Version:
1.0



Content-Type:
text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1



Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit




X-Priority: 3
(Normal)



Importance:
Normal



test

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able