On Wednesday, April 17th, 2024 at 11:51, Philipp wrote:
[...]
>
> Looking at the new trace I see the reason[0] for the error. Other then
> I supected it's the body seperator, which does in your case start with
> a WSP. A wild guess is that the boundery parameter of the working mails
> contain
On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 13:52, Philipp wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> [2024-04-15 10:11] Lévai, Dániel l...@ecentrum.hu
>
> > I've been using this Samsung C480FW printer/scanner forever with OpenSMTPD
> > and suddenly (no upgrades to OpenSMTPD or changes in the
Hi all,
I've been using this Samsung C480FW printer/scanner forever with OpenSMTPD and
suddenly (no upgrades to OpenSMTPD or changes in the configuration) it started
to complain (it's trying to send scanned documents via e-mail):
7e1c0e5b97e7aad0 smtp connected address=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
No it doesn't, that's the whole point...
Eredeti üzenet
Be 2019. aug. 21. 8:47, Selmeci Tamás írta:
> On Wed, 21 Aug [2019 08](tel:201908):19:24 +0200 Martijn van Duren
> wrote:
>
>> From smtpd.conf(5):
>>
>> auth-optional []
>> Support SMTPAUTH optionally: clients need not
>>
Cheers, and appreciate the work you do!
Dani
Eredeti üzenet
Be 2019. júl. 29. 10:13, Gilles Chehade írta:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 08:37:54PM +, L??vai, D??niel wrote:
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>> Did you by any chance have time to look at #926? It there something wrong
>> with my
Hi Gilles,
Did you by any chance have time to look at #926? It there something wrong with
my setup or is this a kind of a regression?
Thanks for any info on this!
Dani
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, 26 July 2019 13:51, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:19:33AM
t it turns out it accepts any certificate that is
trusted based on the default /etc/ssl/certs.pem file.
Besides (re)moving the stock certs file or any other intrusive/ugly workaround,
is there any way I could force a CA for those connections?
Thanks for any hints,
Dani
--
Lévai, Dániel
--
Yo
3DEx21E2Ec8exkdObqKOJuitWKVMeW/CUZGIE7lgEhq93AFIqvtwrGJdLyZ2daxXGGIXnVHn1k0+uiYDssYxLm3UFhq3sA77BCo7hASu29FVTLPnNIWtAoJyIxyxWmiJEPW9pShKO8=
--
LÉVAI Dániel
PGP key ID = 0x83B63A8F
Key fingerprint = DBEC C66B A47A DFA2 792D 650C C69B BE4C 83B6 3A8F
--
You received this mail because you are subscribed to misc@open
Joerg Jung @ 2016-04-05T12:58:23 +0200:
[...]
> > Indeed, this was because of the --timeout-child option to spamd(1).
> > However, raising this limit just because it might cover every message
> > size doesn't really make sense. Even with 600 secs, there will be a
> > message large enough for smtpd
for
> this to work as intended.
Again, even if I had specified a value for 'mx', it must've only routed
the the mail through a server with a lower preference number. So if I
had specified mx1, then there wouldn't have been any servers that are
with a lower pref. value, in turn, if I had specified the mx2
ule->r_value.relayhost.hostname))
>= sizeof (rule->r_value.relayhost.hostname)) {
[...]
Daniel
--
LÉVAI Dániel
PGP key ID = 0x83B63A8F
Key fingerprint = DBEC C66B A47A DFA2 792D 650C C69B BE4C 83B6 3A8F
--
You received this mail because you are subscribed to
LÉVAI Dániel @ 2015-10-31T10:24:35 +0100:
> Hi!
>
> I'm trying to setup a simple backup mx on OpenBSD 5.8-stable, but so far
> it seems more of a burden than a "simple" task :)
>
> smtpd.conf:
> 8<
&g
ost smtpd[1612]: smtp-in: Failed command on session
f7f7a558578d8e10: "DATA" => 500 5.4.6 Routing loop detected: Loop detected
Oct 31 09:11:06 host smtpd[1612]: relay: PermFail for 1c7e2c42fadc367e:
session=f7f7a55764209204, from=<l...@example.com>, to=<l...@example.com>,
rcpt=
13 matches
Mail list logo
