Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So, tcpserver can be used (as we do)
Thanks Gordon, your explanation really helps. A google search led me to
this page which explains further about tcpserver:
http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man1/tcpserver.1.html
Regards,
--
Darrell May
DMC Netsourc
Rasjid Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Gordon is right. There is not need to worry about mailrules on local
> interfaces.
If you think about it, there is tremendous possibles if you can define
separate internal and external rules. I think we are all on the same page
about blocking external i
> -Original Message-
> From: Rasjid Wilcox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> That being said, I have almost finished putting together an 'incremental
> snapshot rsync backup' which backs up to another PC running SME. A base
> level PC with a 80Gig drive is probably less than a tape drive.
> Or
> -Original Message-
> From: Gordon Rowell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I'm not clear why you're trying to impose relay rules on the local
> interface(s).
Gordon is right. There is not need to worry about mailrules on local
interfaces. I have not looked at SME 5.6 yet, but I imagine that
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:04:33PM -0500, Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [...]
> That's precisely what the last line above is asking _tcpserver_ to do -
> select a MAILRULES file. The other lines don't bother with MAILRULES,
> since we're going to let them relay anyway.
>
> tcpserver s
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:45:13AM -, Darrell May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> # cat /etc/tcprules/tcp.smtp
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 192.168.1.10:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> :allow,MAILRULES="/var/qmail/control/mailrules.default"
> [...]
> I'm com
Rasjid Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> and the other lines say
> ...:allow,MAILRULES="/etc/mailrules/external.rules"
>
> I think that will do the trick.
That's certainly helping fill in the gaps :-)
I'll just add that Mitel is templated so what you need to look at is
actually the templated f
Darrell,
Try this.
Create two mailrules files.
eg,
/etc/mailrules/local.rules
/etc/mailrules/external.rules
Configure these however you wish.
Then edit /etc/tcprules/tcprules so that all the local lines say
..,RELAYCLIENT="",MAILRULES="/etc/mailrules/local.rules"
and the other lines say
...:
Hi Darrell,
> If anyone from Mitel or devinfo has the time and would like to offer
> further assistance in my efforts to develop an effective mailfront
> mailrules contrib, please let me know.
We would happily help you with this contrib but we are in the middle of
incorporating our company i
Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> No.
Understood.
If anyone from Mitel or devinfo has the time and would like to offer further
assistance in my efforts to develop an effective mailfront mailrules
contrib, please let me know.
Regards,
--
Darrell May
DMC Netsourced.com
http://myEZserver
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Darrell May wrote:
> Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > True, but the ruleset is entirely up to you. The rules file used is
> > configurable via an environment variable, and can be set differently
> > depending on originating IP address.
>
> Charlie, I'd very muc
Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> True, but the ruleset is entirely up to you. The rules file used is
> configurable via an environment variable, and can be set differently
> depending on originating IP address.
Charlie, I'd very much appreciate it if you would further share your
experti
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Rich Lafferty wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 07:22:21PM -, Darrell May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Further testing has proven '*@*' does not work either :-< This blocks
> > sending to undefined external addresses. The '*' magical implementation is
> > a pain b
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 07:22:21PM -, Darrell May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rich Lafferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Yeah, I see why the feature exists, and it's useful -- but I'd still
> > have preferred a different directive for sender rules instead of
> > making "*" magical. (Hav
Rich Lafferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yeah, I see why the feature exists, and it's useful -- but I'd still
> have preferred a different directive for sender rules instead of
> making "*" magical. (Having to use "*@*" there is a pretty icky
> kludge. :-)
Further testing has proven '*@*' does
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:53:44AM -0500, Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > In other words, there are "compare to sender" rules and "compare to
> > recipient" rules, and the "*" recipient means that that rule is a
> > "compare to sender" rule even if "compare to recipient" rules com
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Rich Lafferty wrote:
> It looks like you're getting caught by some slightly nonintuitive
> behavior in smtpfront's mailrules parsing.
Whether it's intuitive or not depends on how your intuition works :-)
> The mailrules docs note that
>
> Rules with a recipient pattern
17 matches
Mail list logo
