RE: [exim] SPF and sequential exims.

>Do they not also pay you for your expertise? Is it not your >responsibility to explain to them why certain options would be unwise? Yeah, but I have so far been unable to come up with a reason they consider "good enough". They also have a million static blacklists which (to me) doesn't do much g

Re: [exim] Failover design with exim (slightly OT)

I think I've mentioned this before, but if not here it goes. I was thinking of having exim dump mail into either MySQL Cluster or multi-master replication setup. Each email would be keyed off recipient and uuid(), store the full email as a blob, maybe pull out the headers into another table and p

[exim] X-Post: LDAP lookup inside system filter

Hi all Sorry about the cross-post. I tried this on exim-users with no response so I thought I would try my luck here. Really simply: does anyone know if its possible to do LDAP lookups directly in a system_filter or similar (such as a central_filter using the redirect transport)? Basically,

Re: [exim] Failover design with exim (slightly OT)

Jonathan Vanasco wrote: I was talking earlier with a friend about having a failover email system providing full redundancy Ideally something like: Mailserver A port 25 (Live) delivers locally to Mailserver A port 2525 maildirs relays a copy to Mailserver B port 2525 (backup) Mailserver

Re: [exim] Why the dodgy HELOs?

On Thursday 06 October 2005 21:43, Alan J. Flavell wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Adam Funk wrote: > > I still don't understand the spammers' motivation for this -- it > > doesn't seem difficult to reject obviously dodgy HELOs. > > Quite a number of times, I've mused over the question of whether > th

[exim] Failover design with exim (slightly OT)

I was talking earlier with a friend about having a failover email system providing full redundancy Ideally something like: Mailserver A port 25 (Live) delivers locally to Mailserver A port 2525 maildirs relays a copy to Mailserver B port 2525 (backup) Mailserver B port 25 (backup) deli

RE: [exim] Trying to use expanded address list in retries

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Eli wrote: > > addresslist local_peeps = [EMAIL PROTECTED];/etc/exim.host.db > +local_peeps * F,3h,5m; F,12h,15m; F,1d,1h; F,2d,3h > > As my only retry rule for handling all local users? If any of the > manualroute hosts failed, it would first search retries for that host (no

RE: [exim] SPF and sequential exims.

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 01:38 +0200, Jan Johansson wrote: > >Leaving aside the wisdom of rejecting based on SPF, yes. > > Yes, I know. But a customer wants it. One of the few who actually pays > me for the access. Do they not also pay you for your expertise? Is it not your responsibility to explain

RE: [exim] Trying to use expanded address list in retries

Tony wrote: > No, I did mean 32.2 because you seemed to be confused about > how Exim chooses retry rules. It is a bit subtle and to be > honest I just ignore most of the complexity :-) True, I am, and after reading 32.2 a few times, I think I can squash most of my retry rules down to just one f

RE: [exim] Trying to use expanded address list in retries

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Eli wrote: > Tony wrote: > > You should read section 32.2 of the spec which clarifies this. > > 32.1 which refers to 10.18, but close enough (haha, sorry, just had to). No, I did mean 32.2 because you seemed to be confused about how Exim chooses retry rules. It is a bit subtle

RE: [exim] SPF and sequential exims.

>The best you could do >would be to check received headers. However, you'd have no way of knowing >whether the headers were forged. Bleeding good point. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with t

RE: [exim] Trying to use expanded address list in retries

Tony wrote: > You should read section 32.2 of the spec which clarifies this. 32.1 which refers to 10.18, but close enough (haha, sorry, just had to). > > addresslist local_retries = ${lookup {$domain} dbmnz > > {/etc/exim.host.db} {${if > {$value}{0} [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > That is a bad way

Re: [exim] testing transport time rewriting

On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 06:54 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote: > I just attempted a transport time rewrite that caused a mail loop, so > I'm looking for advice on how to test such things safely. > > I believe exim -brw doesn't capture transport rewrites. Though I'm > less sure, I suspect that -N doesn't r

Re: [exim] Trying to use expanded address list in retries

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Eli wrote: > > The point of it is that apparently if delivery fails for a user, it > doesn't thereafter follow retry entries for the host I wanted to send it > to, but now it looks for a retry rule for the individual recipient of > the message. You should read section 32.2 of t

[exim] Trying to use expanded address list in retries

Hey all, been a while! Anyways, I'm running in to a snag, and I don't know if there's a fix, or if I've maybe just come up with yet another item to add to the wishlist, but I'm trying to make an expanded address list that gets used in the retry rules so that I can kind of have a single line, dynam

RE: [exim] SPF and sequential exims.

>Obviously so. So, is it as easy as to add a host = ! statler in the ACL in question? >Leaving aside the wisdom of rejecting based on SPF, yes. Yes, I know. But a customer wants it. One of the few who actually pays me for the access. >BTW, I hope statler is applying the same (or more) rejectio

Re: [exim] help in choosing LMTP method ... info overload

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 hi tony, > Yes. The message framing options on the appendfile and pipe transports > don't apply to the smtp or lmtp transports. gr8. all clear. thx! richard - -- /"\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X against HTML email, vCards / \ & micro$oft

Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/7/2005 9:32:26 AM >>> On 7 Oct 2005 at 11:21, Michael Sprague wrote about "Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.": |... | /etc/aliases. You'll need to run newaliases if you | update that file. That's highly unlikely. By default, exim uses /etc/aliases directly and th

Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.

On 7 Oct 2005 at 11:21, Michael Sprague wrote about "Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.": |... | /etc/aliases. You'll need to run newaliases if you | update that file. That's highly unlikely. By default, exim uses /etc/aliases directly and there's no need to run newaliases. Unless your c

Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.

On 7 Oct 2005 at 9:16, Larry Raab wrote about "Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.": | My problem is the | WEBMASTER name is not on that list yet mail that is sent to WEBMASTER | is being sent to ROOT Looks like a redirect router has mapped webmaster to root. Most likely, you have something

Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.

Larry Raab wrote: I understand that ROOT is on never_use list. My problem is the WEBMASTER name is not on that list yet mail that is sent to WEBMASTER is being sent to ROOT and I am then getting the never_use error. I have deleted and recrated the webmaster user several times to no avail. Is t

Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.

Larry Raab wrote: I understand that ROOT is on never_use list. My problem is the WEBMASTER name is not on that list yet mail that is sent to WEBMASTER is being sent to ROOT and I am then getting the never_use error. I have deleted and recrated the webmaster user several times to no avail. Is

Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.

I understand that ROOT is on never_use list. My problem is the WEBMASTER name is not on that list yet mail that is sent to WEBMASTER is being sent to ROOT and I am then getting the never_use error. I have deleted and recrated the webmaster user several times to no avail. Is there a connection

Re: [exim] Filtering external mail on per user basis

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Odhiambo G. Washington wrote: > Is "reject" a new verb in the ACLs? I don't seem to be able to find > reference to it in spec.txt. I should have written "deny". Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\ N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$

Re: [exim] 2 Problems / Question.

Quoth Larry Raab on Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 08:48:47 -0600 > My first problem is with out going mail form my Exim. It works for > some destination addresses but I get some that look like this. Both problems would be solved it you took the time to read the documentation properly. > 2005-10-07 08:4

Re: [exim] Filtering external mail on per user basis

* On 07/10/05 11:50 +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Craig Schneider wrote: > > > > I was wondering if it would be possible with Exim to only allow users in > > a flat text file to be able to receive external mail? > > reject > message = External email to this user is not permi

[exim] 2 Problems / Question.

My first problem is with out going mail form my Exim. It works for some destination addresses but I get some that look like this. 2005-10-07 08:40:36 1ENtOm-0008Qf-Ly == [EMAIL PROTECTED] R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp defer (-53): retry time not reached for any host Does this have to do with resol

[exim] testing transport time rewriting

I just attempted a transport time rewrite that caused a mail loop, so I'm looking for advice on how to test such things safely. I believe exim -brw doesn't capture transport rewrites. Though I'm less sure, I suspect that -N doesn't run the transport at all. The particular problem was that the re

Re: [exim] Numeric Comparison / debugging issue

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Andrew Johnson wrote: > Exim version 4.51 > > Firstly, I can't see why my condition is failing, but secondly if I rin with > -d+all instead of -d+expand I get totally different answers because the zulu > time expands wrong > > run with -d+expand > 5576 expanding: $tod

[exim] exim4 client with GnuTLS and exim4 server with OpenSSL and certificate problem

Hi, I've problem between two exims. One Is a client whit compiled in GnuTLS support, other is a server whit compiled in OpenSSL. I've something like that in ACL on server side: begin acl check_recipient: accept hosts = : dropmessage = I don't take more than 20 RCPTs

[exim] Numeric Comparison / debugging issue

Exim version 4.51 Firstly, I can't see why my condition is failing, but secondly if I rin with -d+all instead of -d+expand I get totally different answers because the zulu time expands wrong run with -d+expand 5576 expanding: ${extract{cwnhsPasswordExpiryDate}{$acl_c8}{$value}{

Re: [exim] cyrus lmtp callout check problem

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I started lmtpd with option "-a" so no authentication is required. > As I just found out, a cyrus-box named has to exist not > @ which is of course not what I want. > > Not very nice, but while doing it by hand (telnet localhost lmtp), I > can deli

Re: [exim] cyrus lmtp callout check problem

Am Freitag 07 Oktober 2005 12:48 schrieb Tony Finch: > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>> SMTP>> RCPT TO:<@> > > >>> SMTP<< 550-Mailbox unknown. Either there is no mailbox > > > > associated with this > > > > >>> 550-name or you do not have authorization to see it. >

[exim] Strange behavior in router

Hi, I am encountering strange behaviour in this router. Occasionally for a short period of time, the condition evaluates to true when it shouldn't and outgoing mail is quarantined. acl_m8 in the header of the email is null or empty string when clearly it should be a value. By default the value

RE: [exim] Filtering external mail on per user basis

--On 7 October 2005 13:24:35 +0200 Craig Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And to reverse the polarity>? accept message = External email to this user is not permitted recipients = /path/to/file No, that doesn't reverse the polarity, unless it's followed by a reject all acl. The test

RE: [exim] SPF and sequential exims.

--On 7 October 2005 01:43:56 +0200 j2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Obviously so. I actually would have had assumed that SPF-checks where run on the originating server, and not intermediate ones... Live and learn I guess :) How would you know what the originating server was? The best you coul

Re: [exim] (no subject)

--On 7 October 2005 11:45:39 +0100 Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote: So if I'd send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it would be rejected? Yes, because that's an invalid recipient. As you said, that's a little agressive. No, it is a very reliab

RE: [exim] Filtering external mail on per user basis

And to reverse the polarity>? accept message = External email to this user is not permitted recipients = /path/to/file -Original Message- From: Tony Finch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Finch Sent: 07 October 2005 12:50 To: Craig Schneider Cc: exim-users@exim.org Subject: R

Re: [exim] Cannot open exim_dbmbuild database in perl

Bernd Holzinger wrote: > [ perl ] > use BerkeleyDB; > [..] > BDB version: 3.2 ^^^ > - Exim version 4.50 uid=0 gid=0 pid=12707 D=fbb95dfd > Berkeley DB: Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.2.52: ^^ > Is this a version conflict? Yes. I

Re: [exim] help in choosing LMTP method ... info overload

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, OpenMacNews wrote: > > noting [in a pipe transport] the use of the several options ('message > prefix', etc.), and reading that BOTH lmtp is 'somewhat of a cross bet > smtp & pipe' and 'there are only three options to the LMTP driver', > > is it safe to assume that the LMTP 'dri

Re: [exim] Filtering external mail on per user basis

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Craig Schneider wrote: > > I was wondering if it would be possible with Exim to only allow users in > a flat text file to be able to receive external mail? reject message = External email to this user is not permitted ! recipients = /path/to/file Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROT

Re: [exim] (no subject)

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote: > > So if I'd send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it would be rejected? Yes, because that's an invalid recipient. > As you said, that's a little agressive. No, it is a very reliable check. Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat

Re: [exim] cyrus lmtp callout check problem

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>> SMTP>> RCPT TO:<@> > >>> SMTP<< 550-Mailbox unknown. Either there is no mailbox > associated with this > >>> 550-name or you do not have authorization to see it. > >>> 550 5.1.1 User unknown > >>> SMTP>> QUIT > >>> --