@uhl-services

yeah, you picked it correctly.

So we could summarize the whole concept as:

1. gcf shows gobal configuration where as gs shows local configuration(node wise)
2. gs becomes more significant in case of single server. We need to keep an eye on gs in case of using an attribute.
3. By default zimbraReverseProxyMailMode inherits value from server and by default carbonio CE stores https as the value of zimbraReverseProxyMailMode.
4. An attribute can be implemented at server level or global level. That's why flags in attributes are important to watch out:

zextras@mail:~$ carbonio prov desc -a zimbraReverseProxyMailMode
zimbraReverseProxyMailMode
    whether to run proxy in HTTPS or redirect mode. See also related
    attributes zimbraMailProxyPort and zimbraMailSSLProxyPort

               type : enum
              value : https,redirect
           callback :
          immutable : false
        cardinality : single
         requiredIn :
         optionalIn : server,globalConfig
              flags : serverInherited
           defaults : redirect
                min :
                max :
                 id : 685
    requiresRestart : nginxproxy
              since : 5.0.7
    deprecatedSince :

zextras@mail:~$
zextras@mail:~$
zextras@mail:~$ carbonio prov gcf zimbraReverseProxyMailMode
zimbraReverseProxyMailMode: redirect
zextras@mail:~$
zextras@mail:~$
zextras@mail:~$ carbonio prov gs $(hostname -f) zimbraReverseProxyMailMode
# name mail.ub22ce24121.xyz
zimbraReverseProxyMailMode: https

zextras@mail:~$

regards,

First, I didn't realize that the prov gacf command was a global setting whereas the ms command was a setting local to the server. I thought that if gacf returned redirect, everything must be correct for my server. gs, however, returned https, so that was the problem.

Second, I wasn't sure if my single server system qualified as a "proxy node" as described in the documention, and if the step to delete zimbraReverseProxyMailMode on the proxy nodes would have to executed on my server. When I did that, it worked.

I have the same problem on my freshly installed Carbonio 23.12. The server is not listening on port 80.

zimbraReverseProxyAvailableLookupTargets looks good, zimbraReverseProxyMailMode is set to redirect. (That's correct on a single server installation, right?) I didn't have to change these settings, but ran zmproxyconfgen anyway, which didn't throw any errors or warnings.

zmproxyctl restart says

Stopping proxy...nginx:  conflicting server name "carbonio.zottel.net" on 0.0.0.0:443, ignored
done.
Starting proxy...nginx:  conflicting server name "carbonio.zottel.net" on 0.0.0.0:443, ignored
done.

Looking through the nginx configs in /opt/zextras/conf/nginx/includes/, I noticed that the only files where a "listen 80" directive is issued are nginx.conf.web.http and nginx.conf.web.http.default, but those are not included anywhere in my configuration. The corresponding include lines in nginx.conf.web are commented out.

Any ideas what could be wrong?

Thanks, Christian

That's the right attitude, thanks! 👍 

one click from the UI ! I still can't get over it.

It's quite strange that Let's Encrypt certificates are not generated properly, we routinely create them. It may be the case of some strange combination of factors, including (as you mention) external configurations, i.e., not Carbonio-related. In case you happen to find a way to reproduce the issue, we'll be happy to have a look.

It installed OK and all carbonio tests confirmed it, however it took a lot of troubleshooting to get the certs to install.

Unfortunately I don't know precisely what it was that was causing the error, but I did find issues unrelated to carbonio like a spurious character in the netplan yaml file and there were a number of DNS issues some of which still prevail, but something I did outside carbonio got the Letsencrypt certs to install this time.

I said in the above post that everything is aparently OK ie all the Carbonio components are active and running and all the Carbonio services are running but I am still not receiving emails, something I will address in a separate thread.

regards

Simon

Hi,

Did you get any issues this time?

Regards,

Sharif