Email generally works fine but the Roundcube web ui doesn't send emails
Hi,
Email works fine in general, but the Roundcube web ui doesn't send email.
Looking at /home/eitanc/logs/roundcube/errors.log it states something like (id numbers changed by me):
"
SMTP Error: Connection failed: (Code: -1) in /usr/local/cpanel/base/3rdparty/roundcube/program/lib/Roundcube/rcube.php on line 1799 (POST /cpsess7182643742/3rdparty/roundcube/index.php?_task=mail&_unlock=loading1796137944782&_framed=1&_action=send)
"
Any hints how to solve this?
-
Hey there! Could you run this command to see if there are a large number of SMTP connections on the server right now?
netstat -plan| grep :25 |awk {'print $5'}|cut -d: -f 1|sort|uniq -c|sort -n | tail -30You may also want to check the Exim log (/var/log/exim_mainlog) to see if there is evidence of anything odd happening there.
0 -
OK cPRex, I contacted CP support and they pointed me to the support article of "Sending an email from Roundcube results in: SMTP Error (-1): Connection to server failed", https://support.cpanel.net/hc/en-us/articles/10552467452823-Sending-an-email-from-Roundcube-results-in-SMTP-Error-1-Connection-to-server-failed
It was close enough to my issue and easy to test and it solved my issue.
The exim config field of "tls_on_connect_ports" had a value of:
465 : 587 : <another-port>
Once I removed 587 and now it is:
465 : <another-port>
The issue is gone.
Strange why this issue triggered only now for me, the article is two years old and this issue happened to me only now.
So, it is solved, but I ask you, for the sake of future others – to enhance the text of this article to declare that 587 needs to be removed for this field, and the field needs to have at least one other port, which can be the default 465 as the sole one, or any other free port can be used in addition or instead – the main thing is to remove 587 and have at least one port mentioned.
Thank you.
Eitan
0 -
I'm glad you were able to find a resolution! Is that not what the article states, though - that you remove the 587 entry and leave 465 in place?
0 -
First of all, it does not mention the error I got, with "POST", adding it to the article can help customers find this issue and so solve it.
The article states using *only* 465 is the solution and it is not. The core solution is removing 587. But some port needs to be instead, so you can *suggest* using the default 465, but actually in can be any other free port and it can be more than one port. be more flexible, less deterministic, cover more use cases.
0 -
That makes sense - I've tweaked the article a bit now so it should be more useful to future users that come across it :)
0 -
Awesome, thank you!
0 -
You're very welcome!
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments