> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary V
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2005 4:05 a.m.
> To: Stuart Johnston
> Cc: amavis-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [AMaViS-user] FINAL DECISION: Will our machine han
> -Original Message-
> From: Clifton Royston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2005 6:49 a.m.
> To: Stuart Johnston
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; amavis-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [AMaViS-user] FINAL DECISION: Will our machine handle it
>
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:12:42AM -0500, Stuart Johnston wrote:
> Bojan Zdrnja wrote:
> >
> >I completely agree with Gary. Rejecting e-mail for non existent users *at
> >the front-end* is a MUST.
>
> I thought that rejecting non-existent users at SMTP time was considered
> a bad idea because now
Gary V wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Bojan Zdrnja wrote:
I completely agree with Gary. Rejecting e-mail for non existent users *at
the front-end* is a MUST.
I thought that rejecting non-existent users at SMTP time was considered
a bad idea because now the spammer knows that any messages that are
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 00:35 -0400, Matt Juszczak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> OK, I think I've made a final decision on what I'd like to do.
>
> I think I'm going to setup two of the 1U boxes we have (the 3.06 ghz
> machines with IDE drives). I'm going to call one "relay1" and one "relay2".
>
> I'm goi
Stuart wrote:
> Bojan Zdrnja wrote:
>>
>> I completely agree with Gary. Rejecting e-mail for non existent users *at
>> the front-end* is a MUST.
> I thought that rejecting non-existent users at SMTP time was considered
> a bad idea because now the spammer knows that any messages that are
> acc
Stuart wrote:
> Bojan Zdrnja wrote:
>>
>> I completely agree with Gary. Rejecting e-mail for non existent users *at
>> the front-end* is a MUST.
> I thought that rejecting non-existent users at SMTP time was considered
> a bad idea because now the spammer knows that any messages that are
> acc
> I thought that rejecting non-existent users at SMTP time was
> considered a bad idea because now the spammer knows that any
> messages that are accepted are valid email addresses. Is
> this no longer considered a best practice?
Yes it's no longer considered best practice. The problem is tha
Bojan Zdrnja wrote:
I completely agree with Gary. Rejecting e-mail for non existent users *at
the front-end* is a MUST.
I thought that rejecting non-existent users at SMTP time was considered
a bad idea because now the spammer knows that any messages that are
accepted are valid email address
Matt wrote:
> Hiya :)
> OK I'll clarify :) The new 1U boxes will use the same config as the
> existing mail server, including rejecting users that dont exist. Our
> amavisd settings will also be stored in LDAP, so that look up will take
> place anyway.
> Also, we have three redundant LDAP ser
Gary wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm sure you are aware of this Matt, but on your 2 gateway servers,
>>>you MUST reject mail to nonexistent users. I don't know if or how you
>>>are doing this now, but I've heard that use of a relay_recipients map
>>>may be more efficient than LDAP queries, but of
I completely agree with Gary. Rejecting e-mail for non existent users *at
the front-end* is a MUST.
There are multiple ways to do it. Using a relay_recipients (or
virtual_alias_maps, if you have virtual domains) map will be, of course,
more efficient because postfix just checks a local hash tabl
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary V
> Sent: Saturday, 23 July 2005 8:04 a.m.
> To: amavis-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [AMaViS-user] FINAL DECISION: Will our machine handle it
>
> I'
Matt wrote:
>>
>>I'm sure you are aware of this Matt, but on your 2 gateway servers,
>>you MUST reject mail to nonexistent users. I don't know if or how you
>>are doing this now, but I've heard that use of a relay_recipients map
>>may be more efficient than LDAP queries, but of course this means t
"I'm going to setup MX records for the 500+ domains we have. Half
of them will have relay1 as their primary and half of them will have
relay2 as their primary. The remaining server will be set as secondary
MX."
Depends what Matt meant by 'the remaining server' ie the 'other' 1U,
Gary wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 16:58, Gary V wrote:
>>> Pete wrote:
>>>
>>> > Personally I'd set 1/2 the domains to have one of the 1Us as primary and
>>> > the other 1U as secondary and the other 1/2 domains the other way round,
>>> > and have the main server only accept mai
Looks like a good plan.
On the two "relay" servers I would setup postfix to do a verify on the
incoming mail addr. using reject_unverified_recipient and also set
out-going e-mail to go trough the relay's as well..
Milton
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 09:21 -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:35:04AM -0400, Matt Juszczak wrote:
> OK, I think I've made a final decision on what I'd like to do.
>
> I think I'm going to setup two of the 1U boxes we have (the 3.06 ghz
> machines with IDE drives). I'm going to call one "relay1" and one "relay2".
>
> I'm going to
Pete wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 16:58, Gary V wrote:
>> Pete wrote:
>>
>> > Personally I'd set 1/2 the domains to have one of the 1Us as primary and
>> > the other 1U as secondary and the other 1/2 domains the other way round,
>> > and have the main server only accept mail from the 2 1Us.
>>
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 16:58, Gary V wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>
> > Personally I'd set 1/2 the domains to have one of the 1Us as primary and
> > the other 1U as secondary and the other 1/2 domains the other way round,
> > and have the main server only accept mail from the 2 1Us.
> > Rgds
> > Pete
>
>
Pete wrote:
> Personally I'd set 1/2 the domains to have one of the 1Us as primary and
> the other 1U as secondary and the other 1/2 domains the other way round,
> and have the main server only accept mail from the 2 1Us.
> Rgds
> Pete
I don't mean to speak for Matt here, but I think you have
mis
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 00:35 -0400, Matt Juszczak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> OK, I think I've made a final decision on what I'd like to do.
>
> I think I'm going to setup two of the 1U boxes we have (the 3.06 ghz
> machines with IDE drives). I'm going to call one "relay1" and one
"relay2".
>
> I'm goi
I cast my vote: yeah
Gary V
Matt wrote:
> Hi all,
> OK, I think I've made a final decision on what I'd like to do.
> I think I'm going to setup two of the 1U boxes we have (the 3.06 ghz
> machines with IDE drives). I'm going to call one "relay1" and one "relay2".
> I'm going to setup MX recor
Hi all,
OK, I think I've made a final decision on what I'd like to do.
I think I'm going to setup two of the 1U boxes we have (the 3.06 ghz
machines with IDE drives). I'm going to call one "relay1" and one "relay2".
I'm going to setup MX records for the 500+ domains we have. Half of them
wil
24 matches
Mail list logo
