On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 00:09 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Carlos Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > My biggest complaint at work is that there is no global address book
> > for everyone to use.
> Use LDAP :)
Ditto.
--
Consonance: an Open Source .NET OpenGroupware client.
Contact:[E
I continue setup (after a short pause) of a Postfix-Dovecot mail
system. The last major component that I'm configuring (and
understanding with some difficulty :-) is LDAP. I have two questions:
those of you who use LDAP as a back-end, what tools do you use to
manage the entries, and what schema do
** At 16:40 + on 08/14/2008, Duane Hill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Vince Sabio wrote:
when I try to install from /usr/ports/mail/postfix, I get:
===> Installing for postfix-2.5.1_2,1
===> postfix-2.5.1_2,1 conflicts with installed package(s):
postfix-2.4.7,1
They install fil
Carlos Williams wrote:
My biggest complaint at work is that there is no global address book
for everyone to use. Obviously a file I create will be outdated weekly
based on the users I add and remove from my Postfix email server. My
Postfix email server does not do any kind of fancy authenticatio
* Carlos Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My biggest complaint at work is that there is no global address book
> for everyone to use.
Use LDAP :)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://w
John Heim wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "postfix users list"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: mail aliases & spam
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
cake and eat it to. My belief is tha
- Original Message -
From: "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "postfix users list"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: mail aliases & spam
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
cake and eat it to. My belief is that by employing t
My biggest complaint at work is that there is no global address book
for everyone to use. Obviously a file I create will be outdated weekly
based on the users I add and remove from my Postfix email server. My
Postfix email server does not do any kind of fancy authentication with
LDAP or do I have a
Ronald F. Guilmette:
> This situation leaves me, at least, wondering if we cannot have our
> cake and eat it to. My belief is that by employing the marvelous
> flexibility of Postfix there must be a way to _both_ accept all incoming
> messages bound for valid local recipient addresses _and_ also r
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
cake and eat it to. My belief is that by employing the marvelous
flexibility of Postfix there must be a way to _both_ accept all incoming
messages bound for valid local recipient addresses _and_ also reject
some subset of those messages just after the end of the DATA p
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree that false positives are bad... but hopefully you're
>rejecting mail and not discarding it. When (legit) mail is
>rejected, the sender is notified and you'll hear about it...
In a perfect world yes. Unfortunately
Wietse Venema wrote:
The pickup daemon is supposed to be running all the time, and it
is supposed to react immediately. For debugging, see the "-v" option
in the master(5) manual page.
If you submit mail as a non-httpd user, then you will very likely
find that mail is delivered immediately.
On 15 Aug 2008, at 20:09, Noel Jones wrote:
Rupert Reid wrote:
On 15 Aug 2008, at 19:46, Noel Jones wrote:
[please don't top-post]
Rupert Reid wrote:
All,
Thanks for such a quick response.
Yes, as far as I am aware the MX record is set correctly as
follows:
; <<>> DiG 9.3.5-P1 <<>> canto
Rupert Reid wrote, at 08/15/2008 02:59 PM:
The output of postconf -n is as follows:
inet_interfaces = localhost
I do not understand:
This is an extract from main.cf:
# RECEIVING MAIL
# The inet_interfaces parameter specifies the network interface
# addresses that this mail system receives ma
Rupert Reid wrote:
On 15 Aug 2008, at 19:46, Noel Jones wrote:
[please don't top-post]
Rupert Reid wrote:
All,
Thanks for such a quick response.
Yes, as far as I am aware the MX record is set correctly as follows:
; <<>> DiG 9.3.5-P1 <<>> cantoenvivo.es mx
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got
On 15 Aug 2008, at 19:46, Noel Jones wrote:
[please don't top-post]
Rupert Reid wrote:
All,
Thanks for such a quick response.
Yes, as far as I am aware the MX record is set correctly as follows:
; <<>> DiG 9.3.5-P1 <<>> cantoenvivo.es mx
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADE
* punit jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> I was going through link
> http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/smtpauth/smtp_auth_mailclients.html
>
> " It appears that clients try authentication methods in the order as
> advertised by the server (e.g., PLAIN ANONYMOUS CRAM-MD5) w
Noel Jones:
> > inet_interfaces = localhost
>
> Change inet_interfaces to all, or just remove it.
This will also require "postfix stop" followed by "postfix start".
Wietse
[please don't top-post]
Rupert Reid wrote:
All,
Thanks for such a quick response.
Yes, as far as I am aware the MX record is set correctly as follows:
; <<>> DiG 9.3.5-P1 <<>> cantoenvivo.es mx
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 53634
On Thu, 15 Aug 2008, Julian Cowley wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Julian Cowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> < MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 250 2.1.0 Ok
> < RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 550 5.1.0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sender address rejected: User
> > unknown
>
On 15 Aug 2008, at 14:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
The pickup daemon is supposed to be running all the time, and it
is supposed to react immediately. For debugging, see the "-v" option
in the master(5) manual page.
I'll turn that on, see what comes out in the logfile.
If you submit mail as a no
All,
Thanks for such a quick response.
Yes, as far as I am aware the MX record is set correctly as follows:
; <<>> DiG 9.3.5-P1 <<>> cantoenvivo.es mx
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 53634
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUT
Hi,
I'm running: postfix-2.3.2-28 (OpenSUSE)
I'm trying to make Postfix, which runs on a separate machine from LDAP, to do
LDAP binds using TLS. I'm not sure if the problem is:
-> some configuration is missing
-> the fact that the ldap server uses a self-signed certificate is breaking
th
Gaby Vanhegan:
> > There is a delay of up to $trigger_timeout seconds when the Postfix
> > postdrop command tries to notify the pickup daemon that new mail is
> > ready for delivery.
> >
> >PHP -> sendmail -> postdrop -> pickup
> >
> > Perhaps your pickup daemon is very busy.
>
> The system it
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:32:51 +0100
Rupert Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As you can imagine from the question I am asking I am new to postfix,
>however, I hope that the many experts among you will be able to help
>me resolve this problem. I have configured postfix for my domain and
>every
Hi,
Thanks for such a swift response Wietse!
On 15 Aug 2008, at 13:24, Wietse Venema wrote:
Gaby Vanhegan:
Aug 15 12:22:27 dn postfix/smtpd[13962]: >
localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1]: 354 End data with .
Aug 15 12:22:36 dn postfix/smtpd[13962]: public/cleanup socket:
wanted
attribute: statu
Do you have proper MX record set in DNS ?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Rupert Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> As you can imagine from the question I am asking I am new to postfix,
> however, I hope that the many experts among you will be able to help me
> resolve this problem. I have confi
Hi Patrick,
I was going through link
http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/smtpauth/smtp_auth_mailclients.html
" It appears that clients try authentication methods in the order as
advertised by the server (e.g., PLAIN ANONYMOUS CRAM-MD5) which means that
if you disable plaintext passwor
trilemma:
> Hello,
>
> For the policy delegation protocol described in [1] I need some clarification:
>
> 1. Is reverse_client_name always present as an attribute?
> 3. Is client_name always present as an attribute?
The protocol has evolved over time. Whether or not a specific
attribute will be
As you can imagine from the question I am asking I am new to postfix,
however, I hope that the many experts among you will be able to help
me resolve this problem. I have configured postfix for my domain and
everything seems to check out fine. I am able to send emails and when
I send email
trilemma wrote:
Hello,
For the policy delegation protocol described in [1] I need some clarification:
1. Is reverse_client_name always present as an attribute?
No attribute is guaranteed to be present every time, but as a
practical matter this one usually is.
2. If so, is it equal to eith
Gaby Vanhegan:
> I'm trying to find out the source of a delay in postfix processing
> some mail. I have a web app that sends a notification email to users
> but there is a delay when PHP calls the mail() function. I remove the
> call to mail() and the delay goes away. I turned on debuggeri
Zbigniew Szalbot:
> Hello,
>
> I am debugging a faulty operation of dkim-filter and have been asked
> whether I can "capture/quarantine the message(s) which are in progress
> at the time of the crash".
>
> Is this possible with postifx? I looked at the main.cf parameters but
> have not seen an
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello,
I am debugging a faulty operation of dkim-filter and have been asked
whether I can "capture/quarantine the message(s) which are in progress
at the time of the crash".
Is this possible with postifx? I looked at the main.cf parameters but
have not seen anything
I'm trying to find out the source of a delay in postfix processing
some mail. I have a web app that sends a notification email to users
but there is a delay when PHP calls the mail() function. I remove the
call to mail() and the delay goes away. I turned on debuggering_peer
for localhost
Hello,
I am debugging a faulty operation of dkim-filter and have been asked
whether I can "capture/quarantine the message(s) which are in progress
at the time of the crash".
Is this possible with postifx? I looked at the main.cf parameters but
have not seen anything relating to capturing mes
Hello,
For the policy delegation protocol described in [1] I need some clarification:
1. Is reverse_client_name always present as an attribute?
2. If so, is it equal to either REVERSE_DNS_LOOKUP(client_address) or
(case exactly) "unknown" (as suggested by the default_rbl_reply
section in [2])?
3
Jeff wrote:
Out: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Temporary lookup failure
In: RSET
Out: 250 Ok
In: QUIT
Out: 221 Bye
What is the end result of this? Does the sender see an immediate
error? Does the sending MTA queue and retry? I have googled in vain
for the answer.
Response codes starting wit
* Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We recently enabled LDAP lookups (against Active Directory) for
> recipient verification. It's working great but I did get one "server
> error" message from the postfix daemon that had a session transcript
> that ended with:
>
> Out: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Temporar
We recently enabled LDAP lookups (against Active Directory) for
recipient verification. It's working great but I did get one "server
error" message from the postfix daemon that had a session transcript
that ended with:
Out: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Temporary lookup failure
In: RSET
Out: 250 Ok
Robert Cohen:
> However, the fact that the milter was fine, and postfix wouldn't process
> mails made it appear that postfix was the one with the problem.
Cycling power would also have "solved the problem". That also does
not "prove" that the "problem" was with the hardware.
The Milter was obvio
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Julian Cowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
< MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 2.1.0 Ok
< RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
550 5.1.0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sender address rejected: User unknown
< RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 2.1.5 Ok
< QUIT
221 2.0.0 By
* Julian Cowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> < MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 250 2.1.0 Ok
> < RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 550 5.1.0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sender address rejected: User unknown
> < RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 250 2.1.5 Ok
> < QUIT
>> 221 2.0.0 Bye
What's in check_recipient_access
Over the last day we got hit by some phishers who forged an address in our
domain and sent mail to hundreds of our users (same old story, right?).
Now, the sender address they used is not a valid address in our domain, so
I was thinking that since we have reject_unlisted_sender in our
smtpd_re
44 matches
Mail list logo
