, it does not scan body
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications
On Tue, July 15, 2008 21:04, Markus Quaritsch wrote:
So I'd like to know why the mail is not accepted although the quota is
not reached
cd /cluebringer
grep -r 'more transa' *
no hits
so its not policyd
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Wed, December 5, 2007 09:30, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
Or are there any other options we should tune ?
reject_unlisted_recipient before check_policy_service ?
turn down the 500 to 50 will help reduce the graylist aswell, postgrey uses 10
as default
if you have alot of tribbles with count
On Thu, November 29, 2007 17:44, Tobias Kreidl wrote:
We ended up with some complex rules that regulate which messages get
sent to policyd and which bypass it.
if done without smtp auth it will be unstable design
--
-
On Thu, November 29, 2007 18:18, John Beaver wrote:
Please start a new thread for new topics.
i belive its related to the thread here
Most MUA's do not report this (outlook, OE are two). You cannot (and
should not) depend on the MUA's to provide this information. The only
reliable way to
On Thu, November 29, 2007 17:05, Tobias Kreidl wrote:
Our needs and hence our tables are simple and only take up a couple of
megabytes; we process several hundred thousand messages a day, so
efficiency is important.
how many users sends size=0 in policy ?
some mua's is imho brokken on this
On Wed, October 17, 2007 16:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will respond to your message when I
i recommend a better vacation responder, just keep it if you want some to
steal your home, now thay perfectly know when you are home, silly ?
--
This message was sent using 100% recycled spam mails.
On Tue, August 28, 2007 11:52, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
I want to use several features (greylisting, throttling...) but,
obviosly, the main problem is I can test with it if policyd is not
working fine.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unlisted_recipient,
On Tue, August 28, 2007 13:40, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
is postfix running behind a router ?
yes.
postconf -e 'proxy_interfaces=wanipgoeshere'
your mynetworks have no wan ip, and you have no proxy_interface = wan-ip
postfix need to have sign of the wan ip in one of them, but not both for
On Tue, August 28, 2007 21:04, Tobias Kreidl wrote:
If one is running multiple SMTP servers, is there any harm running
cleanup from each one
at the same time via a cron job, or is it better to stagger the times a bit?
you meant policyd from more then one postfix ?
if you have 2 or more mta,
it, just wait
PS: rememember SPF in bind as rr record !
--
Benny Pedersen
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration
On Fri, August 24, 2007 15:32, Cami Sardinha wrote:
This functionality will not be built into Policyd, there is a different
policy server which does SPF checking.
so the policy of policyd is to not use anything externaly ?
if yes this will delay pypd public a little more :-)
--
Benny
On Fri, August 24, 2007 16:55, Stuart Auchterlonie wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
PS: rememember SPF in bind as rr record !
That should be TXT record.
bind 9.4.x have natively spf as rfc now
Mail::SPF test for SPF and TXT spf records
Mail::SPF::Query just test for TXT records
google more
On Wed, July 25, 2007 20:05, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Sure, if I could find out how to make it resolve this within the chroot..
Any ideas ?
Specify the address instead of the hostname for now?
blacklist_dnsname and whitelist_dnsname does not work without working dns
--
This message was sent
On Wed, July 18, 2007 20:51, Joe Lanager wrote:
1. Set SPAMTRAPPING = 1 in policyd.conf
2. Set SPAMTRAP_AUTO_EXPIRE=1d in policyd.conf
3. Enter the trap address(es) in the spamtrap table in MySQL (e.g.,
_rcpt = [EMAIL PROTECTED] and _active=1)
4.
On Wed, May 23, 2007 13:44, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
I'd like to know what you think of this; how would you handle it?
Maybe the best thing is to add 213.46.255.22 to whitelist ?
this ip might be load balanced so there is more then one postfix install with
ther e uniq helo name, shame on
On Fri, May 18, 2007 22:51, Thomas Johnson wrote:
Just a thought, but couldn't you also do this in main.cf:
defer_code = 451
bingo
What else would this effect? Any unwelcome side effects?
delivery more pizza :-)
--
This message was sent using 100% recycled spam mails.
17 matches
Mail list logo
