[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Sender who connects to SMTP has an authenticated account, yet his mail
is being rejected by one of the DNSBL.
Is my "accept authenticated = *" at the wrong place? Is something
wrong in the "acl_check_rcpt" section?
Indeed, you would need to put the "accept
Hi,
Sender who connects to SMTP has an authenticated account, yet his mail
is being rejected by one of the DNSBL.
Is my "accept authenticated = *" at the wrong place? Is something
wrong in the "acl_check_rcpt" section?
acl_check_rcpt:
accept hosts = :
denylocal_parts
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, SeattleServer.com wrote:
> > Is there a way to have exim call spamassassin with the user to whom
> > the e-mail is sent?
>
> Not unless your defer after every recipient in the RCPT ACL so that exim sees
> a new copy of the message (and thus a new instance of the DATA ACL) for e
On Thursday 19 October 2006 09:39, Don O'Neil wrote:
> Is there a utility to convert qmail mail files into the exim mailfile
> format? We're using DirectAdmin's exim implementation, but want to move our
> old mail files (one file per mail format) from qmail to the new system.
You really want to us
On Thursday 19 October 2006 20:10, Chris Purves wrote:
> Is there a way to have exim call spamassassin with the user to whom
> the e-mail is sent?
Not unless your defer after every recipient in the RCPT ACL so that exim sees
a new copy of the message (and thus a new instance of the DATA ACL) for
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 20:34, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I just developed this for a guy who had only one email address for his
> domain. Instead of having several email addresses what I did was if he
> created an IMAP folder then the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] would go
> directly into that fo
On Thursday 19 October 2006 05:09, Marc Sherman wrote:
> The objection was not to the length of the thread, in that case. It was
> the specific repeated demand for a new feature. Once the feature request
> is acknowledged and on the wish-list, it's rude to continue requesting
> that open source dev
Is there a way to have exim call spamassassin with the user to whom
the e-mail is sent?
I understand that "spam = $local_part" won't work for an acl, but that
is essentially what I would like to be able to do.
What is the best way to do this?
--
Take care,
Chris
--
## List details at http://w
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 16:16 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Here's my latest code to make it work. Obviously it is specific to my
> system but can be adapted.
Looks fairly similar to
http://david.woodhou.se/eximconf/include/routers-dir-virtual
-- especially the way you set the user it delivers as :)
On 19/10/2006 20:00, Debbie Doerrlamm wrote:
> I would like very much to add the deny dnslists to my ACL but I need to
> verify exactly where to add it.. as in which section.
You can add it to any ACL you like. Some prefer as early as
acl_smtp_connect, some as late as acl_smtp_predata, and there
Here's my latest code to make it work. Obviously it is specific to my
system but can be adapted.
Router:
virtual_localuser_default_foldermode:
driver = accept
require_files = /vhome/$domain/home/default/$local_part
retry_use_local_part
transport = virtual_localuser_default_foldermode
u
Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Stuart Gall wrote:
>>
>> What he is doing I thing is getting exim to automatically create a
>> new account for any local part it receives on the domains it servs.
>
> So it accepts wildcard deliveries?
>
>> That is quite clever.
>
> Perhaps that's not the word that I wo
Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
>> Actually that isn't the case. The IMAP folder has to already exist so
>> if someone does a dictionary attack then any local part that doesn't
>> match a folder will be rejected as an unknown user. If the folder
>> already exists them mail is deli
Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Stuart Gall wrote:
>
>>What he is doing I thing is getting exim to automatically create a new
>>account for any local part it receives on the domains it servs.
>
>
> So it accepts wildcard deliveries?
>
>
>>That is quite clever.
>
>
> Perhaps that's not the word t
Stuart Gall wrote:
>
> What he is doing I thing is getting exim to automatically create a new
> account for any local part it receives on the domains it servs.
So it accepts wildcard deliveries?
> That is quite clever.
Perhaps that's not the word that I would choose.
--
Martin A. Brooks | h
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>>
>>--On 18 October 2006 20:34:12 -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I just developed this for a guy who had only one email address for his
>>>domain. Instead of having several email addresses what I did was if he
>>>created an IMAP
Hi Can ask a quick question on this
When I create a new user on my server (the e-mail users do not have local
accounts)
I put the username in file named after the domain in a directory called
virtuals
the exim router does a check against the local parts and if the user exists
in the file unde
Marc Perkel wrote:
> Actually that isn't the case. The IMAP folder has to already exist so if
> someone does a dictionary attack then any local part that doesn't match
> a folder will be rejected as an unknown user. If the folder already
> exists them mail is delivered into that folder. If it do
Stuart Gall wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2006, at 21:12, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>
>> Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>> This person only has one user account for the domain with no plans to
>>> ever have more. It's a domain for one person. But he's into IMAP and
>>> likes the idea of direct folder delivery. So i
On 19 Oct 2006, at 21:12, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> This person only has one user account for the domain with no plans to
>> ever have more. It's a domain for one person. But he's into IMAP and
>> likes the idea of direct folder delivery. So if he subscribes to some
>> new
I would like very much to add the deny dnslists to my ACL but I need to
verify exactly where to add it.. as in which section. I have done much
reading tonight and see this mentioned in many places but none of the docs
I read say exactly where in exim.conf to add it. Lord knows I do not want
to
Marc Perkel wrote:
> This person only has one user account for the domain with no plans to
> ever have more. It's a domain for one person. But he's into IMAP and
> likes the idea of direct folder delivery. So if he subscribes to some
> new email list what he does is create a folder for that lis
On 19/10/06, Don O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a utility to convert qmail mail files into the exim mailfile
> format? We're using DirectAdmin's exim implementation, but want to move our
> old mail files (one file per mail format) from qmail to the new system.
>
> I did a search in th
Don O'Neil wrote:
Is there a utility to convert qmail mail files into the exim mailfile
format? We're using DirectAdmin's exim implementation, but want to move our
old mail files (one file per mail format) from qmail to the new system.
I did a search in the archive and there was mention to mak
Is there a utility to convert qmail mail files into the exim mailfile
format? We're using DirectAdmin's exim implementation, but want to move our
old mail files (one file per mail format) from qmail to the new system.
I did a search in the archive and there was mention to make exim work with
mail
Currently I have 2 separate ACLs for this (and the same setup for
whitelists)
Is there a better way to lookup a sender address by full address and just
domain??
acl_check_rcpt:
...
# Deny if SENDER ADDRESS is (user) blacklisted
deny
senders = <, ${extract {mailBlacklistAddr}{$addres
On 19/10/2006 15:51, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:44:11PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:37 +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
>>> well, the configuration of filtering has to live in the
>>> MUA, as it must be under the control of the user.
>> I think t
On 19/10/06, Stuart Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > |http://mail.oldartero.com:/cgi-bin/put
>
> WARNING!!
> This is not just a URL as nigel points out
> Look it is a pipe and a URL to a cgi script. This is clearly an
> attempt to break something and gain some sort of unauthorised access.
>
On 19 Oct 2006, at 17:00, B. Cook wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've started seeing a lot of this, and I'm not sure why they are being
> terminated at the helo/ehlo check as I try and do everything at
> rcpt time..
>
> the 84.174.86.75 host is listed in spamhaus (xbl-sbl) and would get
> caught in a diff
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:51 +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> um. I think by definition the interface between the mail
> system and its users (as opposed to other mail systems,
> the OS, etc.) is the MUA, isn't it?
Perhaps that would be convenient -- but it isn't mandatory. And it
certainly doesn't
Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>
> --On 18 October 2006 20:34:12 -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I just developed this for a guy who had only one email address for his
>> domain. Instead of having several email addresses what I did was if he
>> created an IMAP folder then the email addres
On 19 Oct 2006, at 15:00, B. Cook wrote:
> the 84.174.86.75 host is listed in spamhaus (xbl-sbl) and would get
> caught in a different part of the config and be denied by that.. but
> instead b/c they are being dropped at helo, they have to get caught in
> the ratelimit checks and denied that way.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:44:11PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:37 +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > well, the configuration of filtering has to live in the
> > MUA, as it must be under the control of the user.
>
> I think that applies only for management-types, who ar
minally once-per-day
e.g.,
20061018-main.log
20061019-main.log
(b) rotate to 'same day' + 'counter' log when size of log
exceeds a given limit
e.g.,
20061018-main.log
20061018-main.1
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 15:37 +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> well, the configuration of filtering has to live in the
> MUA, as it must be under the control of the user.
I think that applies only for management-types, who are often found to
be incapable of direct control over anything except by mea
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 19:45 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> I need to set the user in the transport. What I need to set it to is to
>> match the user to the owner file that I'm writing to. Is there a command
>> I can run in the transport that will read the owner of t
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:04:29PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 21:27 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
> > Simple. It isn't one of the obvious or 'stock' tick-the-box choices
> > in 'commodity' MUA. (Moz Suite here..)
> >
> > Easy enough to add, though, and should solve the probl
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 12:18 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
[snip]
> It's a shame that Mailman won't let you reject at SMTP time.
Why not? I thought Mailman acted as an MUA.
Bill
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Pleas
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 21:27 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
> Simple. It isn't one of the obvious or 'stock' tick-the-box choices
> in 'commodity' MUA. (Moz Suite here..)
>
> Easy enough to add, though, and should solve the problem handily!
Filtering doesn't live in an MUA anyway.
--
dwmw2
--
## L
Hello,
I've started seeing a lot of this, and I'm not sure why they are being
terminated at the helo/ehlo check as I try and do everything at rcpt time..
the 84.174.86.75 host is listed in spamhaus (xbl-sbl) and would get
caught in a different part of the config and be denied by that.. but
ins
David Woodhouse wrote:
> inbox and my list folder, each arrival according to its reverse-path. I
> never did understand why anyone would want to use any other method, but
>
Simple. It isn't one of the obvious or 'stock' tick-the-box choices in
'commodity' MUA. (Moz Suite here..)
Easy enough t
--On 18 October 2006 20:34:12 -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just developed this for a guy who had only one email address for his
> domain. Instead of having several email addresses what I did was if he
> created an IMAP folder then the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] would go
[if you don't know fidonet, consider it some sort of uucp, a bit
stranger... ;]
...yes, it is somewhat still alive. ;)
I've just converted my Fidonet BBS system from exim3 to exim4, doing a
rather brute force conversion.
I've still some culprit.
I'm 2:333/1016, and i've also some downlink (2:33
--On 18 October 2006 14:05:54 +0100 Andrew - Supernews
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And callout does NOT HELP THIS AT ALL, since the spammers are quite
> happy to use sender addresses that exist.
Yes, they are. But really, they don't care whether they exist or not. It's
easier for them to j
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 19:56 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
> Correct. I sent you a who-struck-John note on that off-list, but it dd not
> get
> through. Logs showed greylisting.
It got through, and I'll never greylist mail from that IP address again.
It's a host which is now known to queue and retry,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:15:35 +0100, "John Burnham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Those of us who don't use Debian (or at least don't use their split config file
>setup) won't be able to help with that. Try
>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-exim4-users
Please, direct Debian users
On Thursday 19 October 2006 13:53, Alvaro Marin took the opportunity to say:
> So I want to create an ACL to deny incoming mails that aren't from my
> relays or from users that aren't authenticated (with SASL or
> POPbeforeSMTP). I've done this:
This is much simpler:
begin acl
check_recipient:
SeattleServer.com wrote:
>
> Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but why is it that how Bill's MTA
> happens to be configured is of concern to this list, let alone the huge
> thread of uselessness that this entire thread is?
While I agree that this thread has _long_ since outlived its usefu
Hello Exim users,
I've some relays for antispam/antivirus and the MX record for all domains
(hosted in other servers) changed to go through those servers.
The problem is that some spammers sends mails directly to the A record of
the domain (that is on other server) so those mails aren't scanned.
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 05:18 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>Usually only those who 'CC:' everyone they reply to, thereby doubling
>>the traffic.
>
>
> Which I believe is actually how I ended up in your blacklist too, rather
> than sender verification failures.
Correct.
Hello,
I have a smtp-transport using lmtp. In the mainglog I got several like this:
Failed to get write lock for /var/spool/db/wait-mailbox_lmtp.lockfile:
timed out
What is this write lock for? mailbox_lmtp is the name of the transport.
Is this transport treated as a remote delivery so remote_
>What difference does the fact that you have exim4 make? Your eximstats
>was most probably installed as part of exim4.
He dont found this URL.
have i have found it online:
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.50/doc/html/spec.html
please answer always to the list. not privat
bye
marcus
___
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:23:56AM +0200, Frömmel, Andreas said:
> Hi,
>
> i am running exim 4.63 with amavisd and clamav. Everything works fine, the
> only thing that is not working 100% is the exim logging.
> Here is an example of the mainlog. I can't see any deliveries, but mail is
> deliver
Hi,
i am running exim 4.63 with amavisd and clamav. Everything works fine, the only
thing that is not working 100% is the exim logging.
Here is an example of the mainlog. I can't see any deliveries, but mail is
delivered correctly.
2006-10-19 10:16:51 1GaT57-0006cb-03 <= [EMAIL PROTECTED] H=ma
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 13:42, Renaud Allard wrote:
> If you blacklist almost everyone from this list, which are for the most
> part legitimate senders using well configured MTAs, there is probably
> something wrong in your rules and you will end up just blacklisting the
> world minus your IPs
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:50:28AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 19:45 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> > I need to set the user in the transport. What I need to set it to is to
> > match the user to the owner file that I'm writing to. Is there a command
> > I can run in the t
On Thursday 19 October 2006 09:47, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to
say:
> On Thursday 19 October 2006 06:22, Ross Boylan took the opportunity to say:
> > In an effort to fight spam, I reject messages when
> > verify = helo
> > fails, which I believe would happen in the previous scenario.
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 19:45 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I need to set the user in the transport. What I need to set it to is to
> match the user to the owner file that I'm writing to. Is there a command
> I can run in the transport that will read the owner of the file and
> write to the file be
On Thursday 19 October 2006 06:22, Ross Boylan took the opportunity to say:
> In an effort to fight spam, I reject messages when
> verify = helo
> fails, which I believe would happen in the previous scenario.
No, verify = helo checks that the HELO name resolves to the remote IP address
*or* the
59 matches
Mail list logo
