On 14 Nov 2008, at 05:29, Ville Walveranta wrote:
...
Actually there won't be an Exchange server any more; I'm replacing it
with Postfix. It's a small environment and there isn't a dedicated
server for Exchange available; it's been sharing a server with AD
which is a bad idea in the first place.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:01:24PM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
> Welcome to more suggestions, before I result to the final working
> solution: force the stupid admins to allow ICMP traffic with a shotgun
> :)
I would have done that first... There is a reason why ICMP is part of
the IP protocol suite
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 06:14:33PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:07AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
> > > sender) recently and trying to find out whats go
> Until then, sysctl is your friend.
>
> *BSD: sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sack.enable=0
> L*n*x: sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_sack=0 (and I suppose something
> equivalent if you use Linux IPv6 support).
>
> Wietse
Thanks for your suggestions, Ive had both SACK and Window Scaling
turned off for t
Victor Duchovni:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:07AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
> > sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond
> > me.
> >
> > Basically a lot of email is lost
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:07AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
> sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
>
> Basically a lot of email is lost with "timeout after DATA"
>
> For
On 11/14/2008 4:28 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> I'd be very interested in the response that the postfix author (and
>> other vastly more knowledgable people than I, like Victor) would give to
>> the people who claim that if it isn't chrooted, it isn't secure.
>>
>> The only answer I can give right n
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with "timeout after DATA"
For example:
timeout after DATA (0 bytes) from mail.securepay.com.au[203.89.212
Charles Marcus:
> On 11/14/2008, Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Postfix as released by me does not chroot anything. Some
> > Linux distributors insist on setting up things this way,
> > which only can give Postfix a bad reputation.
> >
> > Perhaps if enough people complain it will b
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 04:13:19PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 11/14/2008, Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Postfix as released by me does not chroot anything. Some
> > Linux distributors insist on setting up things this way,
> > which only can give Postfix a bad reputation.
> >
On 11/14/2008, Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Postfix as released by me does not chroot anything. Some
> Linux distributors insist on setting up things this way,
> which only can give Postfix a bad reputation.
>
> Perhaps if enough people complain it will be changed.
I'd be very inte
James Grant:
> > Is the smtp service chroot'ed? Doing so is a real exorcise in getting it
> > to work.
>
> gah that was exactly it! a chroot wont follow symlinks out of the chroot
> will it? I disabled the chroot in master.cf and it works fine. I think for
> now im just going to run smtpd wi
On November 14, 2008 02:45:56 pm Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> James Grant wrote:
> > Hi all, I've exhausted myself trying to figure this one out... im
> > using courier-authlib and its setup and working properly, imap/pop
> > works fine, authtest from the commandline works fine.
> >
> > fo
James Grant wrote:
> Hi all, I've exhausted myself trying to figure this one out... im using
> courier-authlib and its setup and working properly, imap/pop works fine,
> authtest from the commandline works fine.
>
> for some reason, my smtp auth wont use it, it says it cant even find it..
>
> #
Hi all, I've exhausted myself trying to figure this one out... im using
courier-authlib and its setup and working properly, imap/pop works fine,
authtest from the commandline works fine.
for some reason, my smtp auth wont use it, it says it cant even find it..
#cat /etc/postfix/sasl/smtpd.con
D G Teed wrote:
[snip]
I'm afraid this is misunderstood, or I didn't explain it carefully enough.
The ISP sending the bounce notification is my home ISP, not
the ISP for my work. At home I run a small postfix
which relays all outbound to my home's Cable ISP's SMTP.
The Cable ISP's SMTP attempts
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Petr Janda wrote:
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with "timeout after DATA"
For example:
timeout after DATA (0
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with "timeout after DATA"
For example:
timeout after DATA (0 bytes) from mail.securepay.com.au[203.89.212
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Jeffrey Shawn Klotz wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Jeffrey Shawn Klotz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having DNS issues when delivering mail on a postfix server.
The server seems to run fine for several hours. After a while, emails
start to stay in the queue with the fo
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Jeffrey Shawn Klotz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having DNS issues when delivering mail on a postfix server.
The server seems to run fine for several hours.
After a while, emails start to stay in the queue with the following error
for all domains:
postqueue -p
*D
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:42 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> D G Teed wrote:
>
>> I don't think we "send" NDRs as emails originating here.
>> I think we reject emails. Maybe you can tell me.
>>
>> I test emailed a bogus address at work from home. My home ISP's
>> SMTP server sent back a N
i've re-check my configuration and logs, effectively postfix pass the
correct expanded address, the problem was that my script cannot handle
multiple recipients, with filter_destination_recipient_limit = 1 now
it works.
Thanks for your help.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:59 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECT
Rob Klingsten wrote:
Ok, just when you think you have it all figured out ... :(
Thank you very much for the info, I will go back to the drawing board
for my delivery stage from dspam. Thought it was all working well.
consider running dspam in "relay" mode
http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond:
> Dear Wietse,
>
> thank you for your detailed explanation.
> In the future, would you consider having unique identifiers generated
> by an algorithm which would take into account the CPU ID (or other
> unique identifier), process ID & time, so as to make it a unique ID
Ok, just when you think you have it all figured out ... :(
Thank you very much for the info, I will go back to the drawing board
for my delivery stage from dspam. Thought it was all working well.
consider running dspam in "relay" mode
http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com/text/relay-howto.txt
Dear Wietse,
thank you for your detailed explanation.
In the future, would you consider having unique identifiers generated
by an algorithm which would take into account the CPU ID (or other
unique identifier), process ID & time, so as to make it a unique ID
worldwide, or is this not something whi
Durk Strooisma:
> >> I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
> >> the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that
> >> queue IDs were generated randomly, which means they should be
> >> practically unique.
> >
> > Postfix behaves as documented. Pl
mouss schrieb:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i have a problem with stopping spams. The situation is this. Spammers
>> are using our domains to send spam to us. This is one of the example:
>> ...
>> How can i solve this problem at all?
>>
>
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_m
On Fri, November 14, 2008 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is there some way to block this way, or to set some kind of
> authentication only if in MAIL FROM: field they use our domains?
>
> How can i solve this problem at all?
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_unauthenticated_sender
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
i have a problem with stopping spams. The situation is this. Spammers
are using our domains to send spam to us. This is one of the example:
Let's think that one of the our domains is mydomain1.com and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is real user in our system.
The spammers send
Hi,
i have a problem with stopping spams. The situation is this. Spammers
are using our domains to send spam to us. This is one of the example:
Let's think that one of the our domains is mydomain1.com and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is real user in our system.
The spammers send me mail this way:
HELO spa
Rob Klingsten wrote:
[snip]
Ok, just when you think you have it all figured out ... :(
Thank you very much for the info, I will go back to the drawing board
for my delivery stage from dspam. Thought it was all working well.
consider running dspam in "relay" mode
http://dspam.nuclearele
>> I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
>> the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that
>> queue IDs were generated randomly, which means they should be
>> practically unique.
>
> Postfix behaves as documented. Please point out where the doc
Hi Victor,
Perfect, thanks a lot! This is the information I was looking for.
Durk
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:36:10PM +0100, Durk Strooisma wrote:
>
>> I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
>> the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that
Daniel Reinhardt
Website: www.cryptodan.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Junior Network Security Engineer
- Original Message
> From: mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Postfix users
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:58:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Body checks and warning log
>
> MacShane, Tracy
35 matches
Mail list logo
