> > okay. I have upgraded my 4.20 on a testmachine to 4.60. So nwildlsearch
> > works. But a message via other users than the blocked ones that contained
> > in my blacklist were also blocked. Any mail I sent to the host, from
> > different
> > users were blocked.
> >
> > My exim.conf-entry looks
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Peter Velan wrote:
> "Messages supplied during the testing session are discarded, and nothing
> is written to any of the real log files."
>
> Is there a possibility to retain a copy of the processed message in a
> file for later inspection?
No.
> Background: I want to take
This looks quite messed up with all the dirs world writable.
Somethings is going to go wrong :) Probably you should explain a little
bit more.
so still have the problem :(
in the panic log ist this:
2006-03-30 10:31:31 1FOsYx-00063x-NE unable to set gid=99 or uid=99
(euid=106): local deliv
On Thursday 30 March 2006 11:52, Markus Braun wrote:
> >This looks quite messed up with all the dirs world writable.
> >Somethings is going to go wrong :) Probably you should explain a little
> >bit more.
>
> so still have the problem :(
>
> in the panic log ist this:
>
> 2006-03-30 10:31:31 1FOs
am 2006-03-30 10:19 schrieb Philip Hazel:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Peter Velan wrote:
>
>> "Messages supplied during the testing session are discarded, and nothing
>> is written to any of the real log files."
>>
>> Is there a possibility to retain a copy of the processed message in a
>> file for la
What are the permissions on the exim binary?
drwxrwxrwx 9 rootroot 1024 2005-11-11 20:34 conf.d
-rw-r--r-- 1 rootroot39447 2005-12-13 21:55 exim4.conf
-rwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot62255 2005-05-27 10:10
exim4.conf.template
-rwxrwxrwx 1 rootDe
On routers try...
==
send_to_exchange2003:
driver = manualroute
domains = yourdomainhere
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = * yourexchangeIPaddresshere
===
thanks
- Original Message -
From: "Remco Zwaan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday,
On Thursday 30 March 2006 12:43, Markus Braun wrote:
> >What are the permissions on the exim binary?
Those are the permissions on the exim configuration files. I meant the
permissions on /usr/bin/exim4 or /usr/local/bin/exim4 or wherever Debian puts
the exim binary.
I'm not sure typing "which
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 09:43:10AM +, Markus Braun wrote:
[> someone asked:]
>>What are the permissions on the exim binary?
[stuff]
That wasn't an answer to that question. I'll reask it for them. What are
the permissions on the exim *BINARY*, that is, the actual exim program.
(It'll probably b
> Now I'd like to authenticate against courier's authdaemon using this:
> [...]
> ...but I get this error: 31584 expansion failed: failed to connect to
> socket /var/run/courier/authdaemon/socket: Permission denied. The
> permissions on the socket are:
>
> # ll /var/run/courier/authdaemon/socket
>
Hi !!
I have a problem where a domain has some dns problems and it's
on a host list like this:
hosts = +ignore_unknown : *.$sender_address_domain :\
$sender_address_domain : ${lookup dnsdb{>:\
defer_never,mxh=$sender_address_domain}}
looks like some problem trying to resolve the
Hi all,
I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
some of you may genuinely find this useful.
It poses some interesting questions about joe-job bounce messages and
their potential misuse to evade _some_ types of spam filters.
The article is here:
http://www.theregis
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, David Saez Padros wrote:
>
> looks like some problem trying to resolve the hostname cioce.com
> causes the whole acl check to defer with a 451 Temporary local problem
> I suposed that the +ignore_unknown option will also make any lookup
> defer to ignore the list item and proce
Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
>
> During these tests I have run exim in foreground (exim4 -d -bd) and I
> have observed a long delay in the smtp transaction between the moment
> when exim says "doing ident callback" and when things start to move
> again. Is this normal? My exim4.conf is still available
(It'll probably be something like /usr/sbin/exim4 on Debian)?
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 784152 2005-05-27 10:10 exim4
But it worked last week. And one day later, it didnt work.
:(
_
Sie suchen E-Mails, Dokumente oder Fotos? Die ne
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Markus Braun wrote:
>
> -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 784152 2005-05-27 10:10 exim4
>
> But it worked last week. And one day later, it didnt work.
Did someone do chmod -R 777 / on your system?!
Tony.
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
Hi !!
looks like some problem trying to resolve the hostname cioce.com
causes the whole acl check to defer with a 451 Temporary local problem
I suposed that the +ignore_unknown option will also make any lookup
defer to ignore the list item and proceed with the following one,
but the only way to
Jason Meers wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
some of you may genuinely find this useful.
It poses some interesting questions about joe-job bounce messages and
their potential misuse to evade _some_ types of spam filters.
The article is here
Did someone do chmod -R 777 / on your system?!
not really tony, so what are the chmods in this dir:
/usr/sbin ?
Are they all wrong?
What is the correct chmod for the exim4 binary?
_
Sie suchen E-Mails, Dokumente oder Fotos? Di
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
> reject
> a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It would not accept it and
> then
> generate a bounce message.
But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA
On 30/03/06, Jason Meers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
> some of you may genuinely find this useful.
>
> It poses some interesting questions about joe-job bounce messages and
> their potential misuse to evade _some_
Adam Funk wrote:
But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
Which in turn is why MTA(n-1) should be doing recipient-verify callouts.
-Jeremy
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
> > reject
> > a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It would not accept it and
> > then
> > generate
>
> That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
> reject
> a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It would not accept it and
> then
> generate a bounce message.
>
> If the mail admins. of these "respectable companies" actually knew what they
> were doi
Before anything else, thanks to the exim authors for all their hard
work.
We had a problem yesterday when a disk failed and exim started rejecting
all mail with a "Do not retry" (5xx) error code. The text indicated a
"no such user" error. This stopped our upstream relay from trying our
alternate h
Hi
I would ask you about you opinion about a new feature request:
I would like to do the following:
warn host = a.b.c.d
set authenticed = test
So that remote hosts can be authenticated directly.
I know, I can do all this using $ack_cX, but I have a lot of rules, all of
them using authen
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
>> > reject
>> > a message destined for a non-existent
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA w
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Steffen Heil wrote:
>
> I would like to do the following:
>
> warn host = a.b.c.d
>set authenticed = test
>
> So that remote hosts can be authenticated directly.
What I use in this situation is the SASL EXTERNAL mechanism. This is
designed for lifting some lower-level
On Thursday 30 March 2006 16:39, Markus Braun wrote:
> >(It'll probably be something like /usr/sbin/exim4 on Debian)?
>
> -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 784152 2005-05-27 10:10 exim4
It should be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well "chmod go-w,u+s
exim4" or something similar.
>
> But it work
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
>> >> MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
>> >
>> > MTA(n-1) shouldn't accept messages to invalid recipients in the first
>> > place. If it has no direct knowledge of vali
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Adam Funk wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use DNS MX to pick MTA(n) for
non-local recipients.
It's also worth considering
--On 30 March 2006 16:16:09 +0100 Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configur
--On 30 March 2006 16:49:11 +0100 Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use DNS MX to pick MTA(n) for
non-local recip
--On 30 March 2006 17:18:21 +0100 Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Adam Funk wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use D
--On 30 March 2006 15:15:47 +0100 Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30/03/06, Jason Meers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
some of you may genuinely find this useful.
It poses some interesting questions about
Hi !!
It also looks like dns_again_means_nonexist has little effect
and does not solve the problem:
>>> check hosts = +ignore_unknown : *.$sender_address_domain
:$sender_address_domain : ${lookup dnsdb{>:
defer_never,mxh=$sender_address_domain}}
>>> cioce.com in dns_again_means_nonexist? yes
Hi
> What I use in this situation is the SASL EXTERNAL mechanism.
> This is designed for lifting some lower-level authentication
> (such as IPSEC or
> TLS) to the SASL level, but there's no reason that you can't
> consider TCP connections from a known client to be good
> enough authentication
Quoting Steffen Heil:
> I know, I can do all this using $ack_cX, but I have a lot of rules, all of
is it really so hard?
set a macro, e.g. "ACL_AUTHENTICATED = acl_c99"
In some acl (e.g. mail from, that's usually the first one used after
authentication):
warn
authenticated = *
set ACL_AUTHEN
Hello to everyone,
I have exim installed on windows to learn it before I have to run it
under linux (don't yet have an access to a linux box to learn there).
And hence my request for suggestions.
What is the advisable way of keeping mail users? I see from the list
that some people use user a
If you have enough memory in the computer have a look at the free (free
as in beer) VMWare server at www.vmware.com , that will allow you to
install a "Unix-like" distribution on top of windows, then everybody
here will be better able to help you.
If you pick a Red Hat, Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu I
On Thursday 30 March 2006 20:55, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> Hello to everyone,
>
> I have exim installed on windows to learn it before I have to run it
> under linux (don't yet have an access to a linux box to learn there).
It would be helpful if you told us *how* you installed exim under windows -
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
> >> >> MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
> >> >
> >> > MTA(n-1) shouldn't accept messages to invalid recipients i
be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well "chmod go-w,u+s
exim4" or something similar.
hi patrick,
i have changed it.
is there a history somewhere?
in some log file?
i also think that nobody as hack my pc.
But this can the problem be with the rights of the exim binarie?
___
It should be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well "chmod go-w,u+s
exim4" or something similar.
so i think it runs.
no error message in the paniclog yet.
but when i try to send the emails which are in the pipe line:
exim4 -qff
i get some errors like this:
1FO82r-0006xx-LX User 0 set
I have a filter (external program) that accepts a message on stdin, adds
some headers and produces the modified message on stdout (similar to the
way SpamAssassin works). Currently I have a transport filter set up to
handle this like:
iceni_transport:
driver = pipe
batch_max = 1000
On 30/03/06, Markus Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It should be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well "chmod go-w,u+s
> >exim4" or something similar.
>
> so i think it runs.
>
> no error message in the paniclog yet.
>
> but when i try to send the emails which are in the pipe line:
>
>
You really have broken it in a bad way, haven't you? I'm wondering if
you'd be quicker re-installing the OS.
and any other idea?
an easier way?
Has somebody debian sarge, so that he can paste it here, that i can make a
comparison
_
On 30/03/06, Markus Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You really have broken it in a bad way, haven't you? I'm wondering if
> >you'd be quicker re-installing the OS.
>
> and any other idea?
It was a serious suggestion.
>
> an easier way?
You could post every single incident of bad permissions
1FO82r-0006xx-LX User 0 set for local_delivery transport is on the
never_users list
User 0 is always on the never users list, its hard-coded into most exim
binaries. User 0 is root and becoming root to perform local deliveries
is a security risk.
try adding another user, for example:
use
> Has somebody debian sarge, so that he can paste it here, that i can make
a
> comparison
all what is in the /usr/sbin.. is.
all files and folders...
in the shell with the command ls and i look.
yes some people have other packages, but the urgent packages i think has
everybody.
Hello again,
Patrick Okui said the following:
On Thursday 30 March 2006 20:55, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello to everyone,
I have exim installed on windows to learn it before I have to run it
under linux (don't yet have an access to a linux box to learn there).
It would be helpful if
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right, it wouldn't use callouts. But instead, it has a closed
> community of known senders for whom it relays, and it can safely
> assume that none of them is forging its sender address - so if it gets
> a rejection on a relayed messa
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You're right, it wouldn't use callouts. But instead, it has a closed
> > community of known senders for whom it relays, and it can safely
> > assume that none of them is forging its send
Hello all, I'm trying to track down a very strange phenomenon regarding my
mail server at one of our NOCs and I'm hoping someone can help. Here's the
setup:
Internet <-> Firewall/NAT (dallaire) <-> Mail Server (brazilian)
The firewall has two IP's, the legal, external IP on eth0 and the rese
55 matches
Mail list logo
