I was looking at the default levels for anvil and unless I am
misunderstanding (likely) they seem really high.
smtpd_client_connection_count_limit (default: 50)
The maximum number of connections that an SMTP client
may make simultaneously.
So, a single client can open up *50*
On 17-Mar-2009, at 08:52, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01:53AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/17/2009 9:43 AM, Erwan David wrote:
You may generate the pcre file with a line
/recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
for each valid recipient. This
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:14, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/19/2009 5:55 AM, LuKreme wrote:
I came up with this one liner:
$ ls -1 /usr/local/virtual/ | grep @ | sed
's/^\([...@]*\)@\(.*\)$/\/^\1_\(.*\)@\2$\/ \1+$...@\2/'
testu...@example.com = /^testuser_(.*)@example.com$/
testuser+$...@example.com
LuKreme:
My server is pretty light weight, and I don't tend to get too many
floods of spammers, but are these defaults reasonable to mitigate the
damage that a flood might do? Are these defaults anything a normal
user is ever going to hit?
A normal user is NEVER going to hit these
LuKreme:
On 17-Mar-2009, at 08:52, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01:53AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/17/2009 9:43 AM, Erwan David wrote:
You may generate the pcre file with a line
/recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
for each valid
On 3/19/2009 5:55 AM, LuKreme wrote:
You may generate the pcre file with a line
/recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
for each valid recipient. This would preserve the validation of
recipient at RCPT TO stage.
Interesting... and maybe a good candidate for my first
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:45, Wietse Venema wrote:
$ ls -1 /usr/local/virtual/ | grep @ | sed 's/^\([...@]*\)@\(.*\)$/
\/
^\1_\(.*\)@\2$\/ \1+$...@\2/'
testu...@example.com = /^testuser_(.*)@example.com$/ testuser+$...@example.com
This is BROKEN. You are not escaping any of the regexp
LuKreme wrote:
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
LuKreme:
My server is pretty light weight, and I don't tend to get too many
floods of spammers, but are these defaults reasonable to mitigate the
damage that a flood might do? Are these defaults anything a normal
user is ever going
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
LuKreme:
My server is pretty light weight, and I don't tend to get too many
floods of spammers, but are these defaults reasonable to mitigate the
damage that a flood might do? Are these defaults anything a normal
user is ever going to hit?
A
LuKreme:
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:45, Wietse Venema wrote:
$ ls -1 /usr/local/virtual/ | grep @ | sed 's/^\([...@]*\)@\(.*\)$/
\/
^\1_\(.*\)@\2$\/ \1+$...@\2/'
testu...@example.com = /^testuser_(.*)@example.com$/
testuser+$...@example.com
This is BROKEN. You are not escaping any
Cory Coager:
If I'm reading the documentation correctly, when using
smtp_tls_policy_maps for specific domains, if no servers are available
the email will be deferred? Is there a way to change this to a
permanent failure?
There exists no code to convert a TLS failure into a permanent
Hello All,
I've been getting spam messages passing through my server because they
are from a local user account (spoofed). However, the connection came
from an external source. I'm trying to see if there is a setting in
master.cf (or other .cf file) which will reject any email from an
external
On Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 20:28 CET,
David A. Gershman dagershman_...@dagertech.net wrote:
I've been getting spam messages passing through my server because they
are from a local user account (spoofed). However, the connection
came from an external source. I'm trying to see if
Danilo Paffi Monteiro:
Hello,
my old postfix version (postfix-2.2.8) send the instance that match
with this regexp [a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]
the version(postfix-2.5.5) that I'm using now
[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]
is it possible to change the instance= format?
No,
Brandon Hilkert:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
of SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're
looking to not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey
signing into the process. The choice has been made to go with
postfix
Hi
Im configuring a server with postfix amavisd and spamassassin and appears a
problem with the antispam rules. There are one application that uses the
server to send to different clients mails but the amavisd detect howo to
spam this mails. How I can create an exception? I would like to create a
Simon a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Simon a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Simon grem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
wrote:
You are expanding the virtual aliase BEFORE the
Cedric Zeline a écrit :
Hi all,
I need some help. I would like to modify incoming emails.
I need to add a link at top of the incoming mail body, in order to allow
employees that received their email to click on this link and connect
directly to our data base to check the client's data. I
Wietse Venema a écrit :
/dev/rob0:
On Wed March 18 2009 03:06:40 Pascal Volk wrote:
can i whitelist one domain from checking spamhaus ?
thanks
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
...
reject_unauth_destination
...
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/whitelist_clients
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
W dniu 2009-03-18 14:23, Costin Guşă pisze:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, c...@digital-journal.com wrote:
I've been reading today about;
reject_unknown_sender_domain
and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under 'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
whereas I've had
deconya a écrit :
Hi
Im configuring a server with postfix amavisd and spamassassin and
appears a problem with the antispam rules. There are one application
that uses the server to send to different clients mails but the amavisd
detect howo to spam this mails. How I can create an exception?
Thanks for the response.
Our test system is a pretty standard SATA disk with 2GB memory. If disk is
the necessary resource, would we see an immediate benefit by going to a SCSI
disk or even a SCSI array, or does that hardware benefit flatten out at some
point?
As I mentioned, we're using
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
simulate sending it out to the internet.
Did you at least take time to rule out the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:37:31PM -0400, Cory Coager wrote:
If I'm reading the documentation correctly, when using smtp_tls_policy_maps
for specific domains, if no servers are available
That is no servers offer TLS, or do offer TLS, but with unsatisfactory
certificates.
the email will be
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58:52PM +0100, mouss wrote:
I would suggest separating relay control from other checks. something like
smtpd_relay_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
permit_sasl_authenticated
This has been proposed before.
25 matches
Mail list logo
