Hello,
I just want to check up on something ...
I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to
get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with
forged from addresses.
Today I still run my own mail server but I don't see any of this
backscatter
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Matt Richards:
Hello,
I just want to check up on something ...
I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to
get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with
forged from addresses.
Today I still run
ÿóÿýIÿóÿýE-Version: 1.0
NAÿóÿýE OPEN_ÿóÿýODE
- --
The mail start from a AIX server and send to relay with telnet on the smtp port.
But the mail arrive with wrong character.
The problem is of the script or of the postfix server?
Thanks,
Jacopo
--
Linux, Windows Xp ed
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:51:08AM +, Matt Richards wrote:
Does anybody know what happened? Have servers just been
reconfigured to not send backscatter from spam?
Here in the YMMV department ...
My little server hosts a few small Free Software community projects,
one of which is a small
Jacopo Cappelli:
IE-Version: 1.0
NAE OPEN_ODE
- --
What is that?
The mail start from a AIX server and send to relay with telnet on
the smtp port. But the mail arrive with wrong character. The
problem is of the script or of the postfix server?
Thanks. I owe you one. That seems to have fixed it.
On Oct 29, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Dennis Putnam wrote:
That is a relief when I get to the new version.
In the mean time I am still having trouble with the workaround. My
config
Hello folks,
I've got some checks setup like that :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
Simon Morvan:
I notice that event if the recipient address doesn't exists, the
check_policy_service (greylist) got evaluated, causing higher load than
needed. Isn't reject_unauth_destination there to block inexistent
recipients ?
No, that's what reject_unlisted_recipient is for.
--
On Friday 30 October 2009 09:52:44 Simon Morvan wrote:
Hello folks,
I've got some checks setup like that :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
permit_mynetworks,
Viktor,
Hi
Thanks for your guidance. Would please keep an eye on this thread? I am
going to test the configuration using a properly configured GSSAPI client.
Possibly, there will be much more questions to ask ;)
Thank you so much.
Kind Regards
Ali Majdzadeh Kohbanani
2009/10/29 Victor Duchovni
System: FreeBSD-7.2
I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
/usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf
# Enable clamav-milter
milter_default_action = accept
smtpd_milters = unix:/var/run/clamav/clmilter.sock
Jerry a écrit :
System: FreeBSD-7.2
I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
/usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf
# Enable clamav-milter
milter_default_action = accept
smtpd_milters =
Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
On Friday 30 October 2009 09:52:44 Simon Morvan wrote:
Hello folks,
I've got some checks setup like that :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:26:10 +0100
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org replied:
Jerry a écrit :
System: FreeBSD-7.2
I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
/usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf
# Enable clamav-milter
Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:26:10 +0100
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org replied:
Jerry a écrit :
System: FreeBSD-7.2
I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
/usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf
# Enable
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:12:40 +0100
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org replied:
[snip]
Mine is
srwxr-xr-x 1 postfix clamav - 0 Oct 30 15:15
/var/run/clamav/clmilter.sock
In the port this is controlled by
clamav_milter_socket_user=postfix
I changed the permissions on mine to: 0777. I figured it
Barney Desmond wrote:
2009/10/30 Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us:
Keith Palmer wrote:
OK, thanks... but that doesn't answer my question.
Is it possible to configure Postfix for SMTP-AUTH *without* using
SASL/PAM?
I'd like to *not run SASL at all* rather than have it do the lookups.
Use
I would like to confirm my understanding about access files.
Please let me know if any of this is not correct...
The man (5) access description describes a prototype file, where that
file could be a single file describing any host names, network
addresses, envelope senders or recipient
Hi,
If I compile with TLS Support I get following errror, ssl.h is in
/usr/local/openssl and libsslo/libcyrpto.o are in /usr/lib.
compile options are:
SYSTYPE = LINUX2
AR = ar
ARFL= rv
RANLIB = ranlib
SYSLIBS = -lldap -llber -lpcre -lsasl2 -lssl -lcrypto -ldb -lnsl -lresolv -ldb
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 07:15:11PM +0100, Carnac wrote:
If I compile with TLS Support I get following errror, ssl.h is in
/usr/local/openssl and libsslo/libcyrpto.o are in /usr/lib.
That's libcrypto.a, not libcyrto.o of course. And if you find headers
in /usr/local/openssl but libraries
Simon Morvan wrote:
Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
which has been very effective here.
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The Policy behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it
Markus Schönhaber put forth on 10/30/2009 10:05 AM:
Simon Morvan:
I notice that event if the recipient address doesn't exists, the
check_policy_service (greylist) got evaluated, causing higher load than
needed. Isn't reject_unauth_destination there to block inexistent
recipients ?
No,
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 10/30/2009 2:23 PM:
I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
needs to implement depends on whether one uses local deliver?
Should have proofread that... I meant I do not have
reject_unlisted_recipient defined. However, the docs say it's
Stan Hoeppner:
I only have reject_unauth_destination on my relay-only server, and
sending to an invalid recipient address returns:
550 5.1.1 inva...@domain.tld: Recipient address rejected: User unknown
in relay recipient table
I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which
On 10/30/2009 2:28 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 10/30/2009 2:23 PM:
I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
needs to implement depends on whether one uses local deliver?
Should have proofread that... I meant I do not have
Simon Morvan put forth on 10/30/2009 10:39 AM:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The Policy behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Would you please elaborate a bit on this? Most of the listings in PBL
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
Simon Morvan wrote:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The Policy behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Can you please tell me why an ADSL user would send
Larry Stone wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
Simon Morvan wrote:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The Policy behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Can you please tell me why an ADSL
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 10/30/2009 12:55 PM, Robert Lopez wrote:
I would like to confirm my understanding about access files.
Please let me know if any of this is not correct...
The man (5) access description describes a prototype file,
Matt Richards さんは書きました:
Hello,
I just want to check up on something ...
I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to
get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with
forged from addresses.
Today I still run my own mail server but I don't
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
this association.
Organization and ease of management for one. For example:
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access
On 10/30/2009 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
this association.
Organization and ease of management for one. For example:
smtpd_client_restrictions =
On 10/30/2009 6:57 PM, Robert Lopez wrote:
Postfix places no limit on how many maps you can use, but there is system
overhead with each map. Rule of thumb is to combine maps wherever possible
-- don't use two check_sender_access statements if you can do it with one.
The smart way to do this is
Noel Jones put forth on 10/30/2009 11:50 PM:
On 10/30/2009 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
this association.
Organization and ease of management for one. For example:
34 matches
Mail list logo
