Dear Les et al,
Thanks for your assistance with this thorny issue. I have finally resolved
the problem by utilising the following:
1) I have added to the access map of sendmail all the domains that accept
mail for any user, u...@domain for those email accounts that exist and hosts
that are intern
Les Mikesell sent a missive on 2010-02-05:
> On 2/5/2010 9:53 AM, Simon Billis wrote:
>
>>
SNIP
>>
>>>
>>> What are you currently using in mailertable to get there? If you use
>>> [domain] and go to the A record of the same name it might be a problem
>>> - but that might work if you try
On 2/5/2010 9:53 AM, Simon Billis wrote:
>
>>> SNIP
>
>>
>> What are you currently using in mailertable to get there? If you use
>> [domain] and go to the A record of the same name it might be a problem
>> - but that might work if you try it. Where I've used it, the delivery
>> hosts had their o
Les Mikesell sent a missive on 2010-02-05:
> Simon Billis wrote:
>> Les Mikesell sent a missive on 2010-02-05:
>>
>>> Simon Billis wrote:
>>SNIP
>
> What are you currently using in mailertable to get there? If you use
> [domain] and go to the A record of the same name it might be a problem
>
Simon Billis wrote:
> Les Mikesell sent a missive on 2010-02-05:
>
>> Simon Billis wrote:
The point would be able to include a default reject rule for each
domain, which means that you have to supply valid forwards for all
addresses you don't want to reject at the relay. (You could
Les Mikesell sent a missive on 2010-02-05:
> Simon Billis wrote:
>>
>>> The point would be able to include a default reject rule for each
>>> domain, which means that you have to supply valid forwards for all
>>> addresses you don't want to reject at the relay. (You could default
>>> to forwardi
Simon Billis wrote:
>
>> The point would be able to include a default reject rule for each
>> domain, which means that you have to supply valid forwards for all
>> addresses you don't want to reject at the relay. (You could default to
>> forwarding, but that doesn't help with the backscatter issue
Simon Billis wrote on Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:06:36 -:
> I am queuing and delivering using mailertable currently
I figured something along this line.
- hence the issue
> with backscatter as some of the domains do not have catch-all accounts.
Not to mention the extra stress on your system for sca
Hi,
> On 2/4/2010 3:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>
> >> What do you mean? Forwarding to the virtuser expansion address
> should
> >> work just like any other address.
> >
> > It sounds like he didn't forward before, but queue and deliver (e.g.
> he's
> > the only available MX and queues for a fire
On 2/4/2010 3:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> What do you mean? Forwarding to the virtuser expansion address should
>> work just like any other address.
>
> It sounds like he didn't forward before, but queue and deliver (e.g. he's
> the only available MX and queues for a firewalled MX or uses maile
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:52:08 -0600:
> What do you mean? Forwarding to the virtuser expansion address should
> work just like any other address.
It sounds like he didn't forward before, but queue and deliver (e.g. he's
the only available MX and queues for a firewalled MX or u
On 2/4/2010 1:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Simon Billis wrote on Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:47:55 -:
>
>> Indeed as can Scam-backscatter, but I'm attempting to not load the backend
>> mailserver with connections if at all possible,
>
> Yeah, I see. If you fill virtusertable with the valid addresses the
Simon Billis wrote on Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:47:55 -:
> Indeed as can Scam-backscatter, but I'm attempting to not load the backend
> mailserver with connections if at all possible,
Yeah, I see. If you fill virtusertable with the valid addresses then you
have to give explicit forwards for each ex
Hi,
> Simon Billis wrote on Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:28:04 -:
>
> > I am attempting to stop any
> > backscatter that these servers cause by only accepting mail for
> specific
> > us...@domain or for domains with a catch-all account.
>
> I believe milter-ahead or smf-sav can be used for this.
>
>
On 2/4/2010 9:05 AM, Simon Billis wrote:
> > Another would be to use MimeDefang as the framework instead of
>>> mailscanner. It has an option to check recipient addresses via smtp
>> to
>>> the delivery servers before accepting. You may have to write a
>> snippet
>>> of perl to get that right for
On 2/4/2010 9:09 AM, Simon Billis wrote:
> Hi,
>>> I would question how "real time" that would be for every email for
>> 6k+
>>> domains. If a few have a large client base, or are expecting
>> responses
>>> from a mass emailing, it might start to take a *while*, unless you've
>> got
>>> pretty heav
Simon Billis wrote on Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:28:04 -:
> I am attempting to stop any
> backscatter that these servers cause by only accepting mail for specific
> us...@domain or for domains with a catch-all account.
I believe milter-ahead or smf-sav can be used for this.
Kai
--
Get your web at
Hi,
> > I would question how "real time" that would be for every email for
> 6k+
> > domains. If a few have a large client base, or are expecting
> responses
> > from a mass emailing, it might start to take a *while*, unless you've
> got
> > pretty heavy duty equipment and networking.
>
> It's the
Hi,
> >>running
> >> make -C /etc/mail but this has no effect on the sendmail.cf file. My
>
> Does it not give output? Have you tried adding -d?
I get an updated sendmail.cf file but the only diff is the header telling me
when it was complied.
Adding -d give the following (I've removed the non re
Hi,
> One approach here if it is practical to collect/maintain all of the
> valid
> recipient addresses is to build a virtuser table with a default reject
> for each
> domain the relay handles plus the list of all valid addresses. This is
> very
> efficient if you can automate the table updates
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> Simon Billis wrote:
> >
>>> I run a few sendmail servers that run MailScanner/Spamassassin/sendmail
>>> (current versions) on Centos 5.4 and Centos 4.8 These boxes accept mail
>>> for a large number of domains (6000+) scan the mail removing spam and
>>> then
Mike wrote:
> Simon Billis wrote:
>
>> I run a few sendmail servers that run MailScanner/Spamassassin/sendmail
>> (current versions) on Centos 5.4 and Centos 4.8 These boxes accept mail
>> for a large number of domains (6000+) scan the mail removing spam and
>> then forward the ham to another serve
Simon Billis wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I have a couple of questions which I hope that you will be able to assist
> with, first some background.
>
> I run a few sendmail servers that run MailScanner/Spamassassin/sendmail
> (current versions) on Centos 5.4 and Centos 4.8 These boxes accept mail for
>
Hi Folks,
I have a couple of questions which I hope that you will be able to assist
with, first some background.
I run a few sendmail servers that run MailScanner/Spamassassin/sendmail
(current versions) on Centos 5.4 and Centos 4.8 These boxes accept mail for
a large number of domains (6000+) sc
24 matches
Mail list logo