On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:27:22PM -0400, Frank DeChellis wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:52:06PM -0400, Frank DeChellis wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> We run exim 4.67 and we have Barricade MX as our gateway filter. We
> >> installed the filter and changed our MX record 3 weeks ago. The
On 10-04-15 3:08 PM, "Dave Evans" wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:52:06PM -0400, Frank DeChellis wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> We run exim 4.67 and we have Barricade MX as our gateway filter. We
>> installed the filter and changed our MX record 3 weeks ago. The filter
>> works great, but l
Derek Knapp wrote:
> thanks for the responses, I see that Yahoo is now checking dkim.. so I
> do not really care about this anymore :)
>
> Derek
I believe that has become the 'general case' - but features are often much
slower to leave the smtp world than they were to enter them, so this threa
thanks for the responses, I see that Yahoo is now checking dkim.. so I
do not really care about this anymore :)
Derek
On 10-04-15 08:31 PM, Ted Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 18:46 -0400, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, the emphasis has (globally?) shifted to DKIM support - which is no
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 18:46 -0400, W B Hacker wrote:
> AFAIK, the emphasis has (globally?) shifted to DKIM support - which is now
> 'in'
> the current release of Exim.
>
> Ergo, I'd be surprised if DomainKeys or 'dual' signing is getting, or will
> ever
> again get - more recent attention.
>
Derek Knapp wrote:
> is it possible to sign emails with both DKIM and DomainKeys?
>
> I have Googled and found a few posts asking the same thing
> http://old.nabble.com/Exim,-DKIM-and-DomainKeys---possible--td19473691.html
>
> the response said there was a patch but not stable yet? but that was
is it possible to sign emails with both DKIM and DomainKeys?
I have Googled and found a few posts asking the same thing
http://old.nabble.com/Exim,-DKIM-and-DomainKeys---possible--td19473691.html
the response said there was a patch but not stable yet? but that was
over 2 years ago... does anyone
> From: Brent Clark
> I seem to be having a problem with ${lc:$local_part}
>
> The following is in my access log.
> /usr/local/backups/mail/2010-04-14//incoming/1O21SI-0007EO-QK
Because $local_part is local part of recipient address.
Local part of sender address is in $sender_address_local_part
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:52:06PM -0400, Frank DeChellis wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We run exim 4.67 and we have Barricade MX as our gateway filter. We
> installed the filter and changed our MX record 3 weeks ago. The filter
> works great, but lots of mail is still getting sent directly to our SMT
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:37 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> If you're going to block messages with no sender, then you should do this
>> in the DATA ACL, otherwise you'll be unable to deliver email to sites that
>> use sender verification callouts.
>
> Um, I don't agree wi
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:37 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> If you're going to block messages with no sender, then you should do this
> in the DATA ACL, otherwise you'll be unable to deliver email to sites that
> use sender verification callouts.
Um, I don't agree with that. Rather, I'd say "If you
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 14:01 +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> PS. We've already had problems with greylisting (we run that)
> and mailing sites that do sender verification. IIRC we solved
> that long ago. Perhaps by whitelisting some of our funders
> who use sender verification, so not really "solved
--On 15 April 2010 14:01:23 +0200 Jan Groenewald wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:37:35PM +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> For local users, however, the bounce also hits the ACL block,
> so they get no notification that their message was not delivered :(
> I have tried addin
On 10-04-10 5:30 AM, "Always Learning" wrote:
>
> Frank DeChellis wrote on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:52:06 -0400.
>
>
>> . The filter
>> works great, but lots of mail is still getting sent directly to our SMTP
>> server. I can say, with great certainty, that 100.1% of the email going
>>
On 10-04-10 5:30 AM, "Always Learning" wrote:
>
> Frank DeChellis wrote on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:52:06 -0400.
>
>
>> . The filter
>> works great, but lots of mail is still getting sent directly to our SMTP
>> server. I can say, with great certainty, that 100.1% of the email going
>>
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 02:09:59PM -0600, The Doctor wrote:
> Right, I really want to ditch postfix
> for good except on my main server that does Majordomo and
> Virtual DNS, we are seeing high load
spam- and virus-check for *outgoing* Mails
is a killer for any listserver of considerable si
On 10-04-10 5:30 AM, "Always Learning" wrote:
>
> Frank DeChellis wrote on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:52:06 -0400.
>
>
>> . The filter
>> works great, but lots of mail is still getting sent directly to our SMTP
>> server. I can say, with great certainty, that 100.1% of the email going
>>
On 2010-04-14 at 14:09 -0600, The Doctor wrote:
> Right, I really want to ditch postfix
> for good except on my main server that does Majordomo and
> Virtual DNS, we are seeing high load that I am forced to switch back
> to postfix.
> MY configure file reads:
I notice a distinct lack of *any* per
Hi
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:37:35PM +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>> > For local users, however, the bounce also hits the ACL block,
>>> > so they get no notification that their message was not delivered :(
>>> > I have tried adding both of
>>> >
>>> >!senders = mailer-dae...@aims.ac.za
>>>
>>>
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 01:09 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>
> > And in your rcpt acl,
> > deny senders = @@lsearch;/etc/exim/reject-example
> >message = Don't want to relay for that recipient.
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I had to change senders into recipients,
Oh, sorry -- that was a
--On 15 April 2010 09:32:00 +0200 Jan Groenewald wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:26:25PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 16:00 +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
>> > For local users, however, the bounce also hits the ACL block,
>> > so they get no notification that
Please send new messages as new messages, not as replies to unrelated
messages. You may not be using an email client that supports threading;
other people are.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:21:26PM -0400, Derek Knapp wrote:
>hey, I have a file generated from javamail, and I wish to add it to the
>ex
Hallo Jan,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:00:59PM +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> I am using Ubuntu 6.06.2 with exim4-daemon-heavy 4.60-3ubuntu3.1.
> I have several ACLs to block certain Subject lines and From addresses,
> for example, in /etc/exim4/exim.conf, I have, under the acl_check_message
> sec
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 02:09:59PM -0600, The Doctor wrote:
> Right, I really want to ditch postfix
> MY configure file reads:
...> # End of Exim configuration file
>
> Right, where do I start? No problem on sec server.
You did not mention what it was you want to troubleshoot... Or did I
miss s
David Woodhouse wrote:
> echo 'example.com: !rcpt1 : !postmaster : *' > /etc/exim/reject-example
>
> And in your rcpt acl,
> deny senders = @@lsearch;/etc/exim/reject-example
>message = Don't want to relay for that recipient.
Thanks for the pointer. I had to change senders into recipie
Hi
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:26:25PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 16:00 +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> > For local users, however, the bounce also hits the ACL block,
> > so they get no notification that their message was not delivered :(
> > I have tried adding both of
26 matches
Mail list logo
