On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 10:01, Bill wrote:
> That is what my understanding was. you wouyld asign like 5 to your primary
> email server and 10 to the backup. Assigning the same number would just make
> things a little screwy.
Ok, that would make sense. I'm still confused as to why one would let
m
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 10:01, Bill wrote:
> That is what my understanding was. you wouyld asign like 5 to your primary
> email server and 10 to the backup. Assigning the same number would just make
> things a little screwy.
>
yeah, it'll basically just round robin. An additional wrinkle is that
That is what my understanding was. you wouyld asign like 5 to your primary
email server and 10 to the backup. Assigning the same number would just make
things a little screwy.
On Star Date Saturday 15 November 2003 08:51 am, Michael Holt sent this
sub-space message.
> >
> > MX records have
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 07:22, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 06:57, Michael Holt wrote:
> > ...>
> > > if we do a mx record lookup for .com we get qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com. that
> > > server is not answering for port 25 stuff. Interestingly enough they have the
> > > same number assigne
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 06:57, Michael Holt wrote:
> ...>
> > if we do a mx record lookup for .com we get qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com. that
> > server is not answering for port 25 stuff. Interestingly enough they have the
> > same number assigned to there email servers which is 10 I thought that was a
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 22:17, Bill wrote:
> hmmm kinda weird. Here is the results of some nslookup stuff
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] beau]$ nslookup qualxserv.net
> Note: nslookup is deprecated and may be removed from future releases.
> Consider using the `dig' or `host' programs instead. Run nslookup
hmmm kinda weird. Here is the results of some nslookup stuff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] beau]$ nslookup qualxserv.net
Note: nslookup is deprecated and may be removed from future releases.
Consider using the `dig' or `host' programs instead. Run nslookup with
the `-sil[ent]' option to prevent this message
Well, I just wanted to give an update to the postfix prob.
The fix? I just found out that this company just switched their email
server from '.com' to '.net'. I don't know what they're doing, cause
they still have the '.com' server up and running. It must have been
some kind of redirect / relay
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 06:16, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:00, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> > >
> > > Consider coding it simply:
> > > > myhostname = holt-tech.net
> >
> > Ok, now the question becomes, why am I using my domain name instead
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:00, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> >
> > Consider coding it simply:
> > > myhostname = holt-tech.net
>
> Ok, now the question becomes, why am I using my domain name instead of
> my host name where it asks for my host name?
>From my pre
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 19:05, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > I added my client machine to /var/spool/postfix/etc/hosts and added the
> > above to main.cf then I sent a message to my boss from the client
> > machine to see what happens. I'm not sure when I'll he
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:57, James Sparenberg wrote:
> 3 people are in a car. An Electrical Engineer, A Windows programmer,
> and a Mechanical Engineer. They are trying to get a car to re-start
> after it dies. The Electrical Engineer is under the hood testing the
> wiring, the Mechanical Engin
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:53, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Pierre Fortin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Consider coding it simply:
> > > myhostname = holt-tech.net
>
> Exactly. Using "earth.holt-tech.net" gives no b
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:00, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Consider coding it simply:
> > myhostname = holt-tech.net
Ok, now the question becomes, why am I using my domain name instead of
my host name where it asks for my h
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> I added my client machine to /var/spool/postfix/etc/hosts and added the
> above to main.cf then I sent a message to my boss from the client
> machine to see what happens. I'm not sure when I'll hear back, so I'm
> just going to wait a bit and see. I wan
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:23, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:56, Michael Holt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:47, Jack Coates wrote:
> >
> > > you assume that they know what they're doing... many people in the IT
> > > world don't.
> >
> > LOL
> > I'm working on the 'NMCI' proje
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Consider coding it simply:
> > myhostname = holt-tech.net
Exactly. Using "earth.holt-tech.net" gives no benefit, because that name
does not resolve, while "holt-tech.net"
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:41:55 -0800 Michael Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Consider coding it simply:
> myhostname = holt-tech.net
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:22, Jack Coates wrote:
> if the address is in a DHCP pool assigned for home users, more and more
> servers out there will block direct SMTP connections from it; only
> relaying through the ISP's server will work in this case.
This is what I was first thinking; but I'm abl
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:06, Bill Mullen wrote:
> Unless, of course, the only one giving you fits is your boss', which we
> have already established is hosed in some bizarre fashion ... but
> having Postfix use a more valid hostname may fix that situation, too, even
> though that doesn't fully ex
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:49, Bill Mullen wrote:
> ...
> > Quite true, and one's best recourse in that situation is using the
> > ISP's server as a relay, at least for the problem domains (I have to
> > do that with a few). OTOH, that isn't what's happening
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:49, Bill Mullen wrote:
...
> Quite true, and one's best recourse in that situation is using the ISP's
> server as a relay, at least for the problem domains (I have to do that
> with a few). OTOH, that isn't what's happening to Michael, as his Postfix
> *can* send direct
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:06, Bill Mullen wrote:
>
> > Okay, I think you should at least change the "myhostname =" line,
> > found in the /etc/postfix/main.cf file. Having the short hostname of
> > your Postfix box here does you no good, as it is of utterl
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 14:06, Bill Mullen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 08:26, Bill Mullen wrote:
> >
> > > Including the output of "postconf -n", run on the Postfix box, might
> > > be helpful also, as would the re-inclusion of the two sets of heade
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 08:26, Bill Mullen wrote:
>
> > Including the output of "postconf -n", run on the Postfix box, might
> > be helpful also, as would the re-inclusion of the two sets of headers;
> > all that matters is the last couple of "Received:" h
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:23, Jack Coates wrote:
> Yeah, nothing like interviewing job candidates to burst that bubble :-)
> There are some very good people out there, but the dangerous ones are
> the ones that know just enough to do things but don't know enough to
> realize that they shouldn't do
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 08:26, Bill Mullen wrote:
> But there is no such thing as "an email packet," per se - all "vanilla"
> SMTP transactions are conducted in plain text. This is why telnet is so
> useful as a method to test SMTP servers, because with it you can mimic
> what an SMTP client sends *
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:26, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:51, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > Cisco routers are actually very dumb. If the router or a regular
> > firewall is blocking the mail, then the three way TCP handshake will
> > never complete. If a proxy-using firewall (Raptor o
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:56, Jack Coates wrote:
> I'd stop by the sysadmin's desk on the way to the coffee pot and ask
> her/him, assuming it's the kind of place you can walk around in.
>
> Failing that, an off-hand comment about how their email system doesn't
> seem to accept mail from your hom
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:51, Jack Coates wrote:
> Cisco routers are actually very dumb. If the router or a regular
> firewall is blocking the mail, then the three way TCP handshake will
> never complete. If a proxy-using firewall (Raptor or the so-called
> "security servers" in PIX and Check Point
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:56, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:47, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > you assume that they know what they're doing... many people in the IT
> > world don't.
>
> LOL
> I'm working on the 'NMCI' project in Bremerton, WA right now - the
> 'Naval Marine Corps Intran
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 06:47, Jack Coates wrote:
> you assume that they know what they're doing... many people in the IT
> world don't.
LOL
I'm working on the 'NMCI' project in Bremerton, WA right now - the
'Naval Marine Corps Intranet'. I believe that there are a few really
sharp people doing th
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Michael Holt wrote:
> I haven't done any playing with cisco routers, but I would imagine that
> the ios is smart enough to drop anything except an email packet at port
> 25
But there is no such thing as "an email packet," per se - all "vanilla"
SMTP transactions are conducted
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:59, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:56, Bill wrote:
> > I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
> > you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
> > I dont remember ever seing a Cisco rou
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 21:16, Michael Holt wrote:
> ...>
> > Except they drop connection before he could ever send From.. Maybe
> > they've set a ridiculously low timeout or something, but it doesn't act
> > like any real world mailserver I've ever seen.
>
> See, that's the thing. I haven't done
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 21:05, Michael Holt wrote:
> ...>
> > your setup is probably fine. Theirs is FUBAR'd. No fault of yours.
>
> Well, it seems to be the general opinion that I can't really do anything
> about this situation? It just seems so odd that they would make their
> servers *that* ina
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:56, Bill wrote:
> I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
> you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
> I dont remember ever seing a Cisco router checking the header files in emails
> to block a per
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 22:56, Bill wrote:
> I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
> you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
> I dont remember ever seing a Cisco router checking the header files in emails
> to block a per
> > Sympa doesn't always tell us when it /dev/null's a mail. I have
> > an email i have sent over a dozen times, but it just doesn't go
> > thru, and i get no errors
> >
>
> funny thing is, it sent a copy back to me :-)
That's the sympa we know and love...
> You guys will probably
> get m
I dont believe it is a router issue. They could have a acl in place but then
you wouldnt see the answer from the server it would just block it alltogther.
I dont remember ever seing a Cisco router checking the header files in emails
to block a person. I think they may have a timeout issue like
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 19:27, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 17:10, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
> >
> > > I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> > > email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received s
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 19:26, Jack Coates wrote:
> > Ok, I don't fully understand the term 'whitelisting', but I assume that
> > it means only specified senders get in?
> right.
>
> > I'm able to send to any account
> > I've ever tried in the past (hotmail, yahoo, my server when using
> > squir
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 17:10, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> > email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received string. Maybe to keep
> > from getting email from a server
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 19:51, Eric Huff wrote:
> > Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just
> > telnet to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos
> > than a human.
>
> > You can send mails though, -- I posted an example of
> > how to do it earlier today, with t
> Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just
> telnet to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos
> than a human.
> You can send mails though, -- I posted an example of
> how to do it earlier today, with the Dead Kennedies quote, but I
> think it's still floating
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 17:10, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> > email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received string. Maybe to keep
> > from getting email from a server
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:49, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:34, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > Their server won't accept connections from anything that I have access
> > too, and I have access to some pretty high traffic (and legit :-) mail
> > servers -- I don't see how they can get ma
On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:18 pm, Michael Holt wrote:
> I'm wondering if they have something set on their server to drop any
> email that doesn't show an fqdn in the received string. Maybe to keep
> from getting email from a server that's been taken over as a relay? If
> this is the case,
Yeah it looks like they have some issues with mail.
There MX record shows
> qualxserv.com
Server: 66.47.48.51
Address:66.47.48.51#53
Non-authoritative answer:
qualxserv.com mail exchanger = 5 qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com.
Authoritative answers can be found from:
qualxserv.com na
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:34, Jack Coates wrote:
> Their server won't accept connections from anything that I have access
> too, and I have access to some pretty high traffic (and legit :-) mail
> servers -- I don't see how they can get mail from any one. They don't
> even give the chance to AUTH.
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:18, Michael Holt wrote:
... it's not about your message headers ...
> Now, I've changed the ip's and machine name's but you get the idea.
> This is sent to a test account just to see what the headers end up
> like. The problem is that when I email my boss (I'm a contracto
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:40, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:16, Michael Holt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:38, Jack Coates wrote:
> >
> > > Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just telnet
> > > to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos th
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 15:16, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:38, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just telnet
> > to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos than a human.
> > You can send mails though, -- I posted an
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:38, Jack Coates wrote:
> Try watching a mail session with ethereal sometime... it's just telnet
> to port 25, though a server is faster and has fewer typos than a human.
> You can send mails though, -- I posted an example of how to do it
> earlier today, with the Dead Kenn
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:07, Michael Holt wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 13:37, Jason Williams wrote:
>
> > $ telnet 65.246.197.34 25
> > Trying 65.246.197.34...
> > Connected to 65.246.197.34.
> > Escape character is '^]'.
> > 521 qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com access denied
> > Connection closed by fore
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 13:37, Jason Williams wrote:
> $ telnet 65.246.197.34 25
> Trying 65.246.197.34...
> Connected to 65.246.197.34.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 521 qxssmtp2.qualxserv.com access denied
> Connection closed by foreign host.
Ok, question -- why would a server let you telnet into
At 01:25 PM 11/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> I dont see anything in your headers that would warrant them being
malicious
> or spam.
> The only real thing I can see is that when you logged in remotely, its
> showing the verizon connection that was initiated.
Is this a bad thing? This is just saying
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 13:10, Jason Williams wrote:
> I dont see anything in your headers that would warrant them being malicious
> or spam.
> The only real thing I can see is that when you logged in remotely, its
> showing the verizon connection that was initiated.
Is this a bad thing? This is
At 01:01 PM 11/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Hey all,
Sorry for the long post, but I'm confused here. I've been using
squirrelmail for several months now, but I wanted to switch to a local
mail client. Squirrelmail really is local because my postfix email
server is behind the firewall along with my h
Hey all,
Sorry for the long post, but I'm confused here. I've been using
squirrelmail for several months now, but I wanted to switch to a local
mail client. Squirrelmail really is local because my postfix email
server is behind the firewall along with my host machines. I want to
use the webmail
Bryan wrote:
:James, you might want to give us a little more info about how you are
:going to be setting things up.
Good idea.. sorry, I should know better than that. Ok, here goes..
I'm running Mandrake 9.1, and I wish to use Postfix. Postfix is already
installed and I can access it through We
On Thursday 16 October 2003 06:44 am, James wrote:
> I want to thank everyone for my previous Proftpd problems.. all is fixed
> regarding that.
>
> Now.. I am trying to get Postfix to work via Webmin. I was able to start
> Postfix using webmin, but I am not familiar with what settings need to be
>
I want to thank everyone for my previous Proftpd problems.. all is fixed
regarding that.
Now.. I am trying to get Postfix to work via Webmin. I was able to start
Postfix using webmin, but I am not familiar with what settings need to be
set to send email and to receive email. I clicked on the var
Leonardo Sá wrote:
So, is sasl2 useless in 9.1? It will be fixed in 9.2?
AFAIK everything in 9.2 uses sasl2 and sasl1 is gone for good.
Bye
--
Que les importa a las viudas, a los huérfanos, a los desvalidos
si las masacres se hacen en nombre del totalitarismo o en el
sagrado nombre de la liberta
Em Sex, 2003-10-03 às 23:58, Luca Olivetti escreveu:
> Leonardo Sá wrote:
> > i've upgraded my server box from 9.0 to 9.1 and then i lost sasl
> > authentication. I was using sasldb with postfix in 9.0 and everything
> > was working fine. Now I can only get a "535 Error: authentication
> > failed"
Leonardo Sá wrote:
i've upgraded my server box from 9.0 to 9.1 and then i lost sasl
authentication. I was using sasldb with postfix in 9.0 and everything
was working fine. Now I can only get a "535 Error: authentication
failed" on my postfix server.
I've read somewhere that the postfix rpm that c
Leonardo Sá wrote:
i've upgraded my server box from 9.0 to 9.1 and then i lost sasl
authentication. I was using sasldb with postfix in 9.0 and everything
was working fine. Now I can only get a "535 Error: authentication
failed" on my postfix server.
I've read somewhere that the postfix rpm that c
i've upgraded my server box from 9.0 to 9.1 and then i lost sasl
authentication. I was using sasldb with postfix in 9.0 and everything
was working fine. Now I can only get a "535 Error: authentication
failed" on my postfix server.
I've read somewhere that the postfix rpm that comes with mandrake
Thomas Deutsch wrote:
I've tried a lot of things to get the sasl support in postfix working.
But no one of the over 30 howtos (incl. the howto from MandrakeSecure)
I've tried is working.
Luca, where should be pwceck symlinked?
v2 puts it in /var/lib/sasl2/pwcheck, while v1 expects it in
/var/l
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2003 15:30 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2003 14:58 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>How can I block a domain in my postfix.
> >>
> >>Exaple:
> >>
> >>I don't like to recieve mails from default.com.
> >>
> >>So wher
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2003 14:58 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Hi
How can I block a domain in my postfix.
Exaple:
I don't like to recieve mails from default.com.
So where can I block default.com?
Add to your smtpd_recipient_restrictions in main.cf the following line
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2003 15:09 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Thomas Deutsch wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > How can I block a domain in my postfix.
> >
> > Exaple:
> >
> > I don't like to recieve mails from default.com.
> >
> > So where can I block default.com?
>
> Is this right?
>
> main.cf:
> header_chec
Thomas Deutsch wrote:
Hi
How can I block a domain in my postfix.
Exaple:
I don't like to recieve mails from default.com.
So where can I block default.com?
greetings
Hi Thomas,
Go this address: http://pfortin.com/Linux/PostFix/
It will explain everything you need to know. Thanks to Pierre f
Thomas Deutsch wrote:
Hi
How can I block a domain in my postfix.
Exaple:
I don't like to recieve mails from default.com.
So where can I block default.com?
Is this right?
main.cf:
header_checks=regexp:/etc/postfix/bad_headers
bad_headers:
/^From: default.com REJECT
Want to buy your Pack or
Am Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2003 14:58 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Hi
>
> How can I block a domain in my postfix.
>
> Exaple:
>
> I don't like to recieve mails from default.com.
>
> So where can I block default.com?
>
> greetings
>
> Thomas
Add to your smtpd_recipient_restrictions in main.cf the follo
Hi
How can I block a domain in my postfix.
Exaple:
I don't like to recieve mails from default.com.
So where can I block default.com?
greetings
Thomas
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Thomas Deutsch wrote:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:41 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Second, when I install the Postfix-2.0.6 which comes with mdk 9.1 it
does require to install cyrus-sasl-2.1.12. There is no option to install
an older one. When I noe does urpme cyrus-sas
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:41 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Second, when I install the Postfix-2.0.6 which comes with mdk 9.1 it
does require to install cyrus-sasl-2.1.12. There is no option to install
an older one. When I noe does urpme cyrus-sasl to install an older
ve
Hi Luca, hi Martin
Luca Olivetti wrote:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
use
pwcheck_method:saslauthd
I doubt that will work in standard 9.1 (saslauthd is from the sasl2
library, while postfix is using sasl1). Pwcheck should work (once the
socket has been simlinked where sasl1 expects it to be)
I'v
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
use
pwcheck_method: saslauthd
I doubt that will work in standard 9.1 (saslauthd is from the sasl2
library, while postfix is using sasl1). Pwcheck should work (once the
socket has been simlinked where sasl1 expects it to be)
Bye
--
Que les importa a las viudas, a los hu
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:41 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
>
> First, I have no idea how to configure ldap.
Hey, it is woth a try. If you have more than 20 users, it is recommended imho.
There is a realy great article about installing ldap at mandrakesecure.org
from
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:18 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:04 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 12:47 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Mandra
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:18 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:04 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> >>Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> >>>Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 12:47 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
>
> Mand
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:04 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 12:47 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Mandrake 9.1 with
cyrus-sasl-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
postfix-2.0.6-1mdk.i586
libsasl2-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
lib
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 13:04 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 12:47 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> >>Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> >>
> >>Mandrake 9.1 with
> >>cyrus-sasl-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
> >>postfix-2.0.6-1mdk.i586
> >>libsasl2-2.1.12-1mdk.i58
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 12:47 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Mandrake 9.1 with
cyrus-sasl-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
postfix-2.0.6-1mdk.i586
libsasl2-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
libsasl2-plug-plain-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
ok, no wonder. postfix in mdk9.1 needs cyrus sasl
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 12:47 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
>
> Mandrake 9.1 with
> cyrus-sasl-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
> postfix-2.0.6-1mdk.i586
> libsasl2-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
> libsasl2-plug-plain-2.1.12-1mdk.i586
ok, no wonder. postfix in mdk9.1 needs cyrus sasl 1.5.28. So, pl
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 10:54 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
With debug_peer_level = 4, the syslog shows:
Sep 24 10:49:58 homer postfix/smtpd[29656]: warning:
adsl-212-101-20-210.solnet.ch[212.101.20.210]: SASL PLAIN authentication
failed
Sep 24 10:49:59 homer postfix/sm
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 10:54 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
>
> With debug_peer_level = 4, the syslog shows:
>
> Sep 24 10:49:58 homer postfix/smtpd[29656]: warning:
> adsl-212-101-20-210.solnet.ch[212.101.20.210]: SASL PLAIN authentication
> failed
> Sep 24 10:49:59 homer postfix/smtpd[29656]: w
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
[...]
Ok, now it is time for debuging. add your testinghost to the debug_peer_list
and set debug_peer_level to 4. reload postfix and retry your login. See the
data in the log. Your password shuld be listed there (and many other stuff)
See, if it is the correct password a
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 09:54 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 09:25 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> >>I don't have received your last mail, because my server was out of
> >>function. But I've read it in my Colleague's mailbox.
> >>
> >>My pro
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 09:25 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
I don't have received your last mail, because my server was out of
function. But I've read it in my Colleague's mailbox.
My problem is that I try to configure the Mailserver in such a way that
only authenticate
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 09:25 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> I don't have received your last mail, because my server was out of
> function. But I've read it in my Colleague's mailbox.
>
> My problem is that I try to configure the Mailserver in such a way that
> only authenticated mailclient can
I don't have received your last mail, because my server was out of
function. But I've read it in my Colleague's mailbox.
My problem is that I try to configure the Mailserver in such a way that
only authenticated mailclient can send emails trought my server. If I
unterstand it correctly, must I
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 08:39 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
[...]
>
> The File looks now like:
>
> smtp_sasl_local_domain =
> smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes
> smtp_sasl_security_options = noanonymous
> #broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
> #smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_sasl_authenticated,
> che
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 07:51 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
I don't know what is wrong:
master.cf:
smtpinetn - y - - smtpd
#smtpsinet n - n - - smtpd
# -o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes -o smtpd_sasl_
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 08:37 schrieb Martin Fahrendorf:
> Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 08:30 schrieb Martin Fahrendorf:
> [...]
>
> > argh, can you see the obvious? you have enabled the SMTPD sasl stuff, but
> > not the SMTP sasl. The difference is the d. so use
> >
> > smtp_sasl_local_
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 08:30 schrieb Martin Fahrendorf:
[...]
>
> argh, can you see the obvious? you have enabled the SMTPD sasl stuff, but
> not the SMTP sasl. The difference is the d. so use
>
> smtp_sasl_local_domain =
> smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes
> smtp_sasl_security_options = noanony
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 07:51 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 15:49 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> >>>Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 15:31 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>>so you have un-c
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 15:49 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 15:31 schrieb Thomas Deutsch:
[...]
so you have un-chrooted the wron line. search something like
smtp unix - - n - -
1 - 100 of 374 matches
Mail list logo
