Scalix Forums

I am having this problem sending to a specific domain (alabama.gov). Their gateway MTA (smtp.alabama.gov and smtp1) accepts the message without a problem as far as my logs can see, and then, at some later point, the email is rejected and returned. The tech I was finally (after a month) able to contact, says it is a problem on our end, likely a symantec AMS problem. The link he sent to me pertained only to the AMS server, not the client. I have no problems sending to other domains (that I am aware of). I have the latest build of scalix client and server (client - 10.0.0.352 and server 10.0.1.3) and am running Outlook 2003 with all updates.

Scalix sends all email via my smtp gateway on my linux box. here is the log from maillog:

Jul 31 09:38:17 support sendmail[17444]: k6VEcDP2017439: to=<drew.gaston@isd.alabama.gov>, delay=00:00:04, xdelay=00:00:03, mailer=esmtp, pri=33822, relay=smtp1.alabama.gov. [216.226.178.36], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (+OK message queued for delivery.)


The text of a specific error is:

"Reporting-MTA: dns; Gateway2.alabama.gov

Final-Recipient: rfc822;drew.gaston@isd.alabama.gov
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Requested action not taken: Nonstandard SMTP line terminator.
Remote-MTA: dns; 216.226.178.55
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
"

216.226.178.55 is NOT me . .and is NOT one of his gateways. He is determined the problem is on my end, but the occasional message gets through, without the .55 address in his logs anywhere.

I'm stumped. How can I track this down? We are a state college and NEED to be able to send to alabama.gov.

after doing some testing, I found it was spamassassin. I've tested the latest version (compiled on RH ES 3 with all updates) and found it also doing the same thing.

The X-Spam-Status line is terminated with a \n and not a \r\n, so it doesn't pass certain RFC headers. You can disable the X-Spam-Status header by add the line:

remove_header all Status

to your local.cf, but beware, if you filter on that tag (I filter on subject rewrite, so it didn't affect me, that filter will no longer function.

I'm confirming the fix now, waiting on my suspect to get back from lunch to see if he received the email. If you do not see another post from me here, assume it worked.