Problem with a SUSE Server and Zimbra Server

[darkshadowmaster]

Hello, everyone.

This is my situation, I have a Server with Suse serving SVN, Bugzilla, trac and others, but now we now like to do a mail server for collaboration purposes, so we brought a new PC, with Zimbra and everything is ok at intranet. But we like to access it from outside, we only have 1 public IP and it's the ADSL router so, with the port forwarding we made all the adjust for the first server, and with zimbra we just transfer any request from 8080 to the 80 port of the zimbra server and everything is ok.

But.... one of our clients says that port (8080) is blocked in his company, so we started a new strategy... ""use a Proxy with the Apache from the first server to the zimbra server"". Here is the problem, the first server is an OpenSuse with Apache 2.0, after some configuration we made the proxy script like this:




ProxyPass http://10.0.0.35/zimbra
ProxyPassReverse http://10.0.0.35/zimbra




Just a normal proxy.... and the result was a beautiful white page with nothing on it and i have no idea.

Please, i need some help with this.

This is our network plan:

Request from outside ---- ADSL Router forwarding 80 to ------ main server ---- proxying any request /zimbra to ----- http://10.0.0.35/zimbra

[darkshadowmaster]

hello, i have a problem with a server that have a proxy to a zimbra server. The server is SUSE, and it's receiving any request to http://thisserver/zimbra and proxy to http://zimbraserver/server, but i made the proxy script normal, like any other, but i only get a white page with nothing, it seems that the proxy is not working well, but only with zimbra, i have others proxies running well.

ProxyPass /zimbra/ http://10.0.0.35/zimbra/
ProxyPassReverse /zimbra/ http://10.0.0.35/zimbra/

so, with this, if access my server from the browser requesting zimbra, i should get the info from zimbra server itself but the proxy is not working, why?

I'll appreciate any help.

[dwmtractor]

How about putting your Zimbra server on port 443 https instead? It's more secure, and I've never heard of a company that blocks https so it's likely to get around that problem too.

Cheers,

Dan