-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I want to have multiple incoming hostnames to match my domains so it
passes spam checks better.
I found this:
http://www.linuxmail.info/postfix-multiple-ip-address-smtp-greeting/
exactly what I want except it does not work :(
master.cf (before
Hi,
I have configured SMTP-AUTH, this is maily to allow sending from
outside network. as per your suggestion can i use check_sender_access?
Thanks & Regards,
Ramesh
--- In post...@yahoogroups.com, "MacShane, Tracy"
wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: owner-postfix-us...@...
>
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0800, Jeff Weinberger wrote:
>
> I am trying to figure out the best way to map one domain to another with
> the same users...precisely the behavior I am trying to achieve is: when
> mail is sent (from outside, or from another user within my postfix
> installa
Hi:
I would appreciate any advice anyone can offer on how best to achieve
this behavior:
I am trying to figure out the best way to map one domain to another
with the same users...precisely the behavior I am trying to achieve
is: when mail is sent (from outside, or from another user within
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, webmas...@aus-city.com wrote:
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anyt
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, webmas...@aus-city.com wrote:
> Quoting Sahil Tandon :
>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
>>
>>> Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
>>> check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
>>>
>>> I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anything t
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of
> webmas...@aus-city.com
> Sent: Monday, 9 February 2009 3:21 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org; Sahil Tandon
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: whitelistin
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anything that
is ok in the file simply should 'brute force' past the rest of the
c
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anything that
is ok in the file simply should 'brute force' past the rest of the
c
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:38:31PM -0500, Manuel Mely wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm configuring postfix to use LDAP as backend db. I have to deal
> with something that i don't know how to do.
>
> For example, i have this conf file:
>
> server_host = localhost
> server_port = 389
> bind = yes
> bind_dn = cn
-d
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Naturally their
outgoing server (secureserver.net) is listed. I made changes to postfix
but its still rejecting, here is the extract of the main.cf and the rules.
I don't understand why its not wor
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
> Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
> check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
>
> I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anything that
> is ok in the file simply should 'brute force' past the rest of the
> checks, no
Jo?o Miguel Neves:
> Good evening,
>
> I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
> but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
> verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
> replaced by _AT_):
>
> Feb 8 07:56:49
Good evening,
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
replaced by _AT_):
Feb 8 07:56:49 atlas postfix/smtpd[25949]: NOQUEU
Sent from my iPhone
On 09/02/2009, at 11:12, Terry Carmen wrote:
David Cottle wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 09/02/2009, at 10:38, Terry Carmen wrote:
David Cottle wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Natur
On Feb 8, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
To make this work without false matches, you will need to enumerate
the user names.
/^(user1|user2|user3)(-.+)?...@example\.com$/$...@example.com
/^(user4|user5|user6)(-.+)?...@example\.com$/$...@example.com
False positives will cause yo
David Cottle wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 09/02/2009, at 10:38, Terry Carmen wrote:
David Cottle wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Naturally their
outgoing server (secureserver.net) is listed. I made change
Sent from my iPhone
On 09/02/2009, at 10:38, Terry Carmen wrote:
David Cottle wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Naturally their
outgoing server (secureserver.net) is listed. I made changes to
postfix
but its
Victor Duchovni wrote, at 02/08/2009 03:37 PM:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:32PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>
>> No, I was referring to the "Sent" folder, populated by the MUA, either
>> in a local disk or using IMAP.
>
> I know some people clever-enough to set "Sent == Inbox", yes this is not
> very
David Cottle wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Naturally their
outgoing server (secureserver.net) is listed. I made changes to postfix
but its still rejecting, here is the extract of the main.cf and the rules.
I don
Sent from my iPhone
On 09/02/2009, at 10:09, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Naturally their
outgoing server (secureserver.net) is listed. I made changes to
postfix
but its still rejecting, here is the ext
Hi,
I'm configuring postfix to use LDAP as backend db. I have to deal
with something that i don't know how to do.
For example, i have this conf file:
server_host = localhost
server_port = 389
bind = yes
bind_dn = cn=admin,dc=foobar,dc=com
bind_pw = aaa
cache = no
search_base = o=hosting,dc=
Tony Demark:
> >> If the original server gets an email addressed to 'me-
> >> foo...@example.com', I need the email to be relayed to
> >> 'm...@example.com', not 'me-foo...@example.com'.
> >
> > /^(.+)(-.+)?...@example\.com$/$...@example.com
> >
>
> OK ... I think I got this figured out. It en
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
> I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Naturally their
> outgoing server (secureserver.net) is listed. I made changes to postfix
> but its still rejecting, here is the extract of the main.cf and the rules.
>
> I don't understand why its no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have got RBL tests and I got a client on godaddy. Naturally their
outgoing server (secureserver.net) is listed. I made changes to postfix
but its still rejecting, here is the extract of the main.cf and the rules.
I don't understand why its no
Tony Demark a écrit :
>
> On Feb 8, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> Tony Demark:
>>> I would like to move some of my virtual domains to have their email
>>> hosted via a "Google for Domains" account. While there are only a
>>> handful of accounts, most of the accounts have many aliase
On Feb 8, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Demark:
On Feb 8, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Demark:
I would like to move some of my virtual domains to have their email
hosted via a "Google for Domains" account. While there are only a
handful of accounts, most of the
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:32PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>
>> No, I was referring to the "Sent" folder, populated by the MUA, either
>> in a local disk or using IMAP.
>
> I know some people clever-enough to set "Sent == Inbox", yes this is not
> very common.
>
> I perso
Tony Demark:
>
> On Feb 8, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Tony Demark:
> >> I would like to move some of my virtual domains to have their email
> >> hosted via a "Google for Domains" account. While there are only a
> >> handful of accounts, most of the accounts have many aliases and
On Feb 8, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Demark:
I would like to move some of my virtual domains to have their email
hosted via a "Google for Domains" account. While there are only a
handful of accounts, most of the accounts have many aliases and have
used '-' as a recipient delim
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:32PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> No, I was referring to the "Sent" folder, populated by the MUA, either
> in a local disk or using IMAP.
I know some people clever-enough to set "Sent == Inbox", yes this is not
very common.
I personally have rules that tag outgoing mail in
M. Fioretti a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 18:22:17 PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>>> I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And
>>> it will break MUA driven thread handling
>> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as
>> - received mail even then, MUAs have heur
Tony Demark:
> Good day.
>
> I am have spent spent some time trying to figure out if the following
> Postfix config is possible and am hoping for some guidance.
>
> Short Synopsis:
>
> I would like to move some of my virtual domains to have their email
> hosted via a "Google for Domains" acc
Good day.
I am have spent spent some time trying to figure out if the following
Postfix config is possible and am hoping for some guidance.
Short Synopsis:
I would like to move some of my virtual domains to have their email
hosted via a "Google for Domains" account. While there are only a
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 18:22:17 PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And
> > it will break MUA driven thread handling
>
> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as
> - received mail even then, MUAs have heuristics to cope with suc
On Feb 8, 2009, at 1:02 PM, mouss wrote:
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:22:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And
it will
break MUA driven thread handling
- very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as
On Feb 8, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Bastian Blank > wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:13:53AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
ever touch a message id.
Do explain how adding/replacing a valid Mess
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:22:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>
>>> I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And it will
>>> break MUA driven thread handling
>> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as received mail
>> - even then, MUAs
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:37:20PM +0800, jan gestre wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Victor Duchovni
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 02:55:28PM +0800, jan gestre wrote:
> >
> >> Where is the best place to put the DNS caching resolver? in the NAT
> >> device? or in the Mail Server it
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:22:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And it will
> > break MUA driven thread handling
>
> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as received mail
> - even then, MUAs have heuristics to cope with
mouss wrote:
and if a spam filter blocks/discards/quarantines mail because of this,
it is the filter that should be blamed.
I use this setup for detecting Backscatter. Until now without problems,
but it's difficult to know.
Bastian Blank a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:13:53AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>> Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
>>> ever touch a message id.
>> Do explain how adding/replacing a valid Message-ID only to su
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:13:53AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
> > ever touch a message id.
> Do explain how adding/replacing a valid Message-ID only to submitted mail
> will "break
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > This works as I'd expect, but will it break anything else?
>
> Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
> ever touch a message id.
Do explain how adding/repla
Göran Höglund a écrit :
> Hi
> Sorry my fault! I did change the original listname and made an error in
> the snippet.
> Here is the correct errorlog:
> Feb 8 13:06:05 apollo postfix/smtpd[12115]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> unknown[172.16.254.4]: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient
> address rejected: User unk
Hi
Sorry my fault! I did change the original listname and made an error in
the snippet.
Here is the correct errorlog:
Feb 8 13:06:05 apollo postfix/smtpd[12115]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[172.16.254.4]: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient
address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table;
f
Göran Höglund a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> Feb 8 11:34:11 apollo postfix/smtpd[11557]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> unknown[172.16.254.4]: 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address
> rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=<[192.168.0.4]>
>
> [snip]
> test_all: "|
Sahil Tandon a écrit :
> I have been asked to replace the MUA Message-ID of SASL senders with a
> Postfix-generated ID. The Message-ID of incoming mail which arrives via the
> same Postfix instance, but does not originate from a SASL authenticated
> sender, should not be touched. The submission se
Hi
I have been running a postfix/courier mailserver with virtual users and
Maildir for a while.
Now I need to setup a mailinglist and I have choosen mailman.
The installation of mailman did work well but somewhere I fail to get
the aliasing work properlly.
I get the following errorlog in mai
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> This works as I'd expect, but will it break anything else?
Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
ever touch a message id.
Bastian
--
Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude.
-- Spock
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, nik600 wrote:
>
>> filterunix - n n - 20 pipe
>> flags=Rq user=filter argv=/var/script/my_spamc_1.5 -f
>> ${sender} -- ${recipient}
>>
>> Is there the possibility to know in some va
I have been asked to replace the MUA Message-ID of SASL senders with a
Postfix-generated ID. The Message-ID of incoming mail which arrives via the
same Postfix instance, but does not originate from a SASL authenticated
sender, should not be touched. The submission service runs on port 587. Are
t
52 matches
Mail list logo
