I have a staging server running Postfix, which I want to only set up
to deliver mail to example.org. This machine is running Mailman, and
gets lists copied back from the production server - we want to be able
to test on this server safe in the knowledge that if someone
accidentally sends mail to
Craig Box:
I have a staging server running Postfix, which I want to only set up
to deliver mail to example.org.? This machine is running Mailman, and
gets lists copied back from the production server - we want to be able
to test on this server safe in the knowledge that if someone
Dear everyone,
I'm working on some Antispam-Proxy, using Postfix as MTA. Postfix is
2.6.2-RC1 on an Ubuntu 8.04 LTS base-system.
Preconditions:
* Postfix shall only accept mails addressed to valid (=existing)
recipients. To accomplish this, I'm using a regexp:/ map on
relay_recipient_maps
On 1/26/2010 9:06 AM, Erik Sonn wrote:
Dear everyone,
I'm working on some Antispam-Proxy, using Postfix as MTA. Postfix is
2.6.2-RC1 on an Ubuntu 8.04 LTS base-system.
Preconditions:
* Postfix shall only accept mails addressed to valid (=existing)
recipients. To accomplish this, I'm using
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:06:29PM +0100, Erik Sonn wrote:
Dear everyone,
I'm working on some Antispam-Proxy, using Postfix as MTA. Postfix is
2.6.2-RC1 on an Ubuntu 8.04 LTS base-system.
Preconditions:
* Postfix shall only accept mails addressed to valid (=existing)
recipients. To
Thank your for the reply. While I am not too familiar (yet) with the Policy
Daemons, it seems somewhat straight forward. What I do not understand in
your suggestion is the multiple smtp_bind_address statements. It's not clear
to me how that will effect delivery to separate smarthosts or relay
Thanks for the info, let me give you a more detailed scenario.
The mailgateways (postfix ldap) on both sides do OU based verification against
MS AD,
so the serveron Canada side will query the ou=Canada,dc=domain,dc=local
and the server on the US side will query to ou=States,dc=domain,dc=local
DAVID HASSILEV:
Thank your for the reply. While I am not too familiar (yet) with the Policy
Daemons, it seems somewhat straight forward. What I do not understand in
your suggestion is the multiple smtp_bind_address statements. It's not clear
to me how that will effect delivery to separate
I got this task of implementing ODMR in postfix. Although I tried playing the
why-not-instead game,
1. no one wants to hear about uucp probably because they thought we will also
switch the fiber links to 9600baud modems.
2. ETRN was a good choice until ISP decided that ETRN is not a good choice
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:44:07PM -0500, Andrew Nady wrote:
Thanks for the info, let me give you a more detailed scenario.
The mailgateways (postfix ldap) on both sides do OU based verification
against MS AD,
so the serveron Canada side will query the ou=Canada,dc=domain,dc=local
and the
Ah, much clearer now. Your assistance is appreciated.
Regards,
-David
What you said first time was that you have the same smarthost
but different routes. So if this is still the case, using
different smtp_bind_address will help you later in doing some
source routing.
From:
On 1/26/2010 12:33 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Hi,
How do I remove the: Received: from localhost line at the top of the e-mail
message?
Return-Path: from-a-mailing-l...@host.org
X-Original-To: myusern...@mydomain.com
Delivered-To: myusern...@mydomain.com
Received: from localhost
Got one domain not receviing mail at all.
I did a DNS serial number restart,
check the relevant files in postifx
and still no go.
When I do
telnet mail.hosthame.tld 25
The answer is correct.
I am running 100s of Domains at this is the only one experiencing this
problem.
What do I need to do
We host email for several domains. Occasionally an account will get
phished and our outbound server will get blacklisted by hotmail and
others. We'd like to separate the outbound email so that one domain
with a phished account doesn't get all outbound email blacklisted.
I'm trying to set up an
adrian ilarion ciobanu:
No matter how hard I try not to, I keep seeing similarities between
ETRN and ATRN.
In both clases the client connects to the standard SMTP port. The
biggest difference is that ETRN creates new SMTP connections for
delivery, whereas ATRN delivers over the existing
On 1/26/2010 1:48 PM, The Doctor wrote:
Got one domain not receviing mail at all.
I did a DNS serial number restart,
check the relevant files in postifx
and still no go.
When I do
telnet mail.hosthame.tld 25
The answer is correct.
I am running 100s of Domains at this is the only one
Added a comment about how to avioid the transport:DOMAIN_PORT kludge.
Wietse Venema:
adrian ilarion ciobanu:
No matter how hard I try not to, I keep seeing similarities between
ETRN and ATRN.
In both clases the client connects to the standard SMTP port. The
biggest difference is that
Dan Lists:
We host email for several domains.? Occasionally an account will get
phished and our outbound server will get blacklisted by hotmail and
others.? We'd like to separate the outbound email so that one domain
with a phished account doesn't get all outbound email blacklisted.
I'm
On 1/26/2010 1:52 PM, Dan Lists wrote:
We host email for several domains. Occasionally an account will get
phished and our outbound server will get blacklisted by hotmail and
others. We'd like to separate the outbound email so that one domain
with a phished account doesn't get all outbound
As the result of repeated requests to make Postfix routing dependent
on envelope or content properties, Postfix now has several mail
delivery features that are not fully orthogonal.
First there are sender_dependent_xxx_maps where xxx is relayhost,
default_transport, and so on. These are nice in
I am hoping that this is something fairly simple that I am missing
I have a few lists on a mailman server that I run. Until recently, only
authenticated users (those who have actual accounts on my IMAP/Virtual
mailboxes server and can authenticate via SASL). Now I want to allow certain
users
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/26/2010 12:33 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
This needs to be more specific so you don't remove headers added by other
servers. Maybe:
/^Received: from localhost.*by lucidpixels\.com / IGNORE
If you need special header_checks for your amavisd
I'm looking for someone to administer my Linux mail server that runs Postfix
MTA. I know this isn't a job posting list and I apologize. Looking for
remote contract work. Maybe 5 hours a week.
Shawn Fee
SGF IT Solutions, LLC | IT Manager
813.817.8706
mailto:s...@sgfitsolutions.com
In both clases the client connects to the standard SMTP port. The
biggest difference is that ETRN creates new SMTP connections for
delivery, whereas ATRN delivers over the existing connection.
So I should understand that RFC specifying port 366 as the ODMR port is just
a should and not a
Instead of using a DOMAIN_PORT kludge which requires reserving
a TCP port or UNIX-domain pathname per customer, it would make
sense to use the existing Postfix connection caching mechanism.
The idea is to push an open socket into the scache daemon (with a
suitable time to live) under the
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:45:25PM -0600, adrian ilarion ciobanu wrote:
Instead of using a DOMAIN_PORT kludge which requires reserving
a TCP port or UNIX-domain pathname per customer, it would make
sense to use the existing Postfix connection caching mechanism.
The idea is to push an
adrian ilarion ciobanu:
In both clases the client connects to the standard SMTP port. The
biggest difference is that ETRN creates new SMTP connections for
delivery, whereas ATRN delivers over the existing connection.
So I should understand that RFC specifying port 366 as the ODMR
port is
What is the valid format for a parameter name?
It is not specified in postconf.5.
Specifically is a - (dash) embedded in the name,
a valid parameter name?
Where this is of interest is the interplay between
defining a service in master.cf (specifically using pipe(8)),
and then wanting to create
Hello, Postfix-users.
1. which option cause to warn:
reject_unknown_sender_domain reject_sender_login_mismatch
reject_unverified_sender
?
It will be cleaner if:
... Sender address rejected by 'reject_sender_login_mismatch' ...
2. and why it is warn if I am an authenticated user?
Jan 27
So I would push the socket to scache after I'm done setting it up
from SMTPD (auth, policy checks) and forget about it. If it times
out before local smtp will start deliver then the client is welcome to
reconnect.
This will happen if it has to happen in SMTPD or in SCACHE the same
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 05:40:40PM -0600, adrian ilarion ciobanu wrote:
So I would push the socket to scache after I'm done setting it up
from SMTPD (auth, policy checks) and forget about it. If it times
out before local smtp will start deliver then the client is welcome to
You associate a fixed nexthop with each authenticated client, and their
entire set of domains. You flush either all their domains, or the subset
they requested. The scache entry is for the client-specific nexthop, not
the recipient domain.
example.com atrn:[client1.atrn.invalid]
Jeff Weinberger a écrit :
I am hoping that this is something fairly simple that I am missing
I have a few lists on a mailman server that I run. Until recently, only
authenticated users (those who have actual accounts on my IMAP/Virtual
mailboxes server and can authenticate via SASL). Now
Коньков Евгений a écrit :
Hello, Postfix-users.
1. which option cause to warn:
reject_unknown_sender_domain reject_sender_login_mismatch
reject_unverified_sender
?
It will be cleaner if:
... Sender address rejected by 'reject_sender_login_mismatch' ...
the three reject_* that yoi
--- In postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com, mouss mo...@... wrote:
Jeff Weinberger a �crit :
I am hoping that this is something fairly simple that I am missing
I have a few lists on a mailman server that I run. Until recently, only
authenticated users (those who have actual accounts on my
On 1/26/2010 7:15 PM, Jeff Weinberger wrote:
--- In postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com
mailto:postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com, mouss mo...@... wrote:
Jeff Weinberger a �crit :
I am hoping that this is something fairly simple that I am missing
I have a few lists on a mailman server that
adrian ilarion ciobanu:
You associate a fixed nexthop with each authenticated client, and their
entire set of domains. You flush either all their domains, or the subset
they requested. The scache entry is for the client-specific nexthop, not
the recipient domain.
example.com
Jeff Weinberger:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
--- In postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com, mouss mo...@... wrote:
Jeff Weinberger a ?crit :
I am hoping that this is something fairly simple that I am missing
I have a few lists on a mailman server that I run. Until
On 1/26/2010 3:59 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/26/2010 12:33 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
This needs to be more specific so you don't remove headers added by
other servers. Maybe:
/^Received: from localhost.*by lucidpixels\.com / IGNORE
If you need
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:26:15PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Then the transport map would look like:
example.com atrn:[example.com]
example.org atrn:[example.org]
ATRN supports multi-domain requests either explicitly or implicitly,
in which case the domain - nexthop
--- In postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com, Wietse Venema wie...@... wrote:
Jeff Weinberger:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
--- In postfix-us...@yahoogroups.com, mouss mouss@ wrote:
Jeff Weinberger a ?crit :
I am hoping that this is something fairly simple that I am
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:35:23PM -0800, Jeff Weinberger wrote:
Wietse:
5.7.1 mylist@
mailto:mylist@: Relay access denied;
You have not listed the domain in relay_domains,
virtual_alias_domains, virtual_mailbox_domains or mydestination.
Convince yourself and examine the
42 matches
Mail list logo
