Hello,
Odhiambo G. Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Di 01 Aug 2006 21:40:27 CEST):
>
> 1. What is the dandiest way to do this? After all dnsbl, I want to
>accomplish all the checks at acl_smtp_rcpt and reject any unknown
>recipients. Are there are pitfalls I should watch for?
You could us
On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Odhiambo G. Washington wrote:
> * On 01/08/06 20:58 +0100, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> | Odhiambo G. Washington wrote:
> | > I need some advise on a task I am working on towards spam
> control and
> | > bandwidth saving. I am going to have a dedicated server hosted
> so
* On 01/08/06 21:01 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
| On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Odhiambo G. Washington wrote:
| >
| > 1. What is the dandiest way to do this?
Hi Tony,
Let me see if I understand you...
| # map domain to destination server
| domainlist domain_info = cdb;/etc/exim/domain_routes.cdb
So, this cd
* On 01/08/06 20:58 +0100, Jeremy Harris wrote:
| Odhiambo G. Washington wrote:
| > I need some advise on a task I am working on towards spam control and
| > bandwidth saving. I am going to have a dedicated server hosted somewhere
| > upstream and this server is going to be my highest priority MX
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Odhiambo G. Washington wrote:
>
> 1. What is the dandiest way to do this?
# map domain to destination server
domainlist domain_info = cdb;/etc/exim/domain_routes.cdb
begin acls
# ...
require verify = recipient
# ...
begin routers
manualroute:
driver = manualroute
do
Odhiambo G. Washington wrote:
> I need some advise on a task I am working on towards spam control and
> bandwidth saving. I am going to have a dedicated server hosted somewhere
> upstream and this server is going to be my highest priority MX for several
> thousand domains.
I assume you have a low
Hi,
I need some advise on a task I am working on towards spam control and
bandwidth saving. I am going to have a dedicated server hosted somewhere
upstream and this server is going to be my highest priority MX for several
thousand domains.
Basically, I want to save as much bandwidth as possible
Quoting Troy Engel:
> My initial guess is some permutation of the 'localuser' router with a
> global filter that triggers a custom transport (based on
> 'local_delivery') that uses ${home}/Maildir/.Junk maybe? Any ideas?
local_delivery:
driver = appendfile
...
maildir_format
directory = /var
I think this might be doable, so thought I'd ask the pros here (Hi Tony
;) ) -- I have a request to see if we can use a global filter on mail
for each individual user that's normally run in their forward file.
Our exim runs as mail:mail and runs SpamAssassin in the old fashioned
way, reinjectin
On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Ron Soda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Fr 28 Jul 2006 22:21:34 CEST):
>> How make a Always_bcc in exim ??
>
> As in some other mail: The unseen router option should help.
>
>
>> how postfix?
>
> I think postfix has some global (?) always_bcc option.
Jeremy Harris wrote:
>
> Does this imply that Exim+SA isn't doing a proper handshake around
> the SMTP-dot-after-DATA? Or that MSN isn't?
> Why does Exim think it has accepted the message, when MSN does not?
It's pretty much a design flaw in the SMTP protocol. At least it errs on
the side of dup
--On 1 August 2006 10:07:33 -0400 My BSD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 06:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
> Pezhman Lali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dear
>> up now, for scanning incoming and outgoing messages, in company 's
>> gateway, p3scan+proxsmtp+spamassassin were installed. I th
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Chris Blaise wrote:
>
> Clearly the "problem" on my end is that the machine in question is
> only 64MB and doing Sophos, ClamAV, and SpamAssassin scanning.
SpamAssassin is a HUGE memory hog. You absolutely must ensure that your
machine is not swapping any of the memory it
Hello Cédric,
"Cédric MARCOUX (sprimont)", 01.08.2006 (d.m.y):
> Yes but changing the router order will not provide me the ability to
> forward mail to certain user on a remote smtp, isn't it???
Why not?
Regards,
Christian Schmidt
--
Was je Gutes oder Böses über die Menschen gekommen ist, ha
Chris Blaise wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Balzer
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:03 AM
>>To: exim-users@exim.org
>>Subject: Re: [exim] Incoming duplicates
>>
>>
>>I can confirm this MSN behavior, one recipient
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Jeremy Harris wrote:
|
| Why does Exim think it has accepted the message, when MSN does not?
|
By the time Exim gives the 2xx response to DATA, MSN has already timed-out.
RFC 1047 discusses this in detail.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-use
Hi Dear
up now, for scanning incoming and outgoing messages, in company 's gateway,
p3scan+proxsmtp+spamassassin were installed.
I think exim is more powerfull than p3scan or proxsmtp, if can acts as
transparent proxy, can not it?
in first searching i can not find any related info.
let me know
Chris Blaise wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Balzer
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:03 AM
>> To: exim-users@exim.org
>> Subject: Re: [exim] Incoming duplicates
>>
>>
>> I can confirm this MSN behavior, one reci
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Chris Blaise wrote:
| Clearly the "problem" on my end is that the machine in question is
| only 64MB and doing Sophos, ClamAV, and SpamAssassin scanning.
You're calling SpamAssassin via spamd, right ?
Perhaps try turning off the SpamAssassin network tests, as something
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Balzer
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:03 AM
> To: exim-users@exim.org
> Subject: Re: [exim] Incoming duplicates
>
>
> I can confirm this MSN behavior, one recipient here was at
> the en
I was wondering if I can not use a simple pipe for my delivery like this:
Added cedric .forward
pipe "/usr/exim/bin/exim -C /usr/exim/configure.exchange"
/usr/exim/configure.exchange *contains only router to remote exchange
2003* so it force the mail to cedric to be sended to exchange...
Howeve
Yes but changing the router order will not provide me the ability to
forward mail to certain user on a remote smtp, isn't it???
Christian Schmidt a écrit :
> Hello Cédric,
>
> "Cédric MARCOUX (sprimont)", 01.08.2006 (d.m.y):
>
>> I currently using Exim as a first barricade for my Exchange Serve
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:12:16AM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> On a mail server(Debian Woody with exim4.34-9.backports,exiscan and
> spamassassin-3.0.2-0.backports) that has run a long time now and that
> was very stable a strange problem developed over the weekend and I am at
> a loss on how to c
Hello Cédric,
"Cédric MARCOUX (sprimont)", 01.08.2006 (d.m.y):
> I currently using Exim as a first barricade for my Exchange Server 2003...
> I mean that all my mail comes directly on my Linux Box port 25 using Exim.
>
> I have set my Exim to deliver all the receiving mail to my remote
> exchan
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
> Ah, Philip has been improving it :-)
--
Philip HazelUniversity of Cambridge Computing Service
Get the Exim 4 book:http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at
Hi all!
I currently using Exim as a first barricade for my Exchange Server 2003...
I mean that all my mail comes directly on my Linux Box port 25 using Exim.
I have set my Exim to deliver all the receiving mail to my remote
exchange using this transport:
exchange2003:
driver = manualrou
Tony Finch wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Chris Blaise wrote:
[MSN happily ignoring RFC timeouts]
>> And/or is there a built-in way deal with this situation?
>
>The only way is to ensure that your machine is meaty enough to scan email
>quickly. In particular you should ensure that SpamAssassin is tu
27 matches
Mail list logo
