LuKreme wrote:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
Almost the same...
>> Join spam-l and ask this
>> naked PTR question. You will be clued.
What is their authority ? Wh
Hello
I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
actually I use :
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
\check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
on the mailhub which is not "Internet visible" but I would like to
reject with the MX machine to avoid transmission to th
On 2010-01-17 Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
> notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other
> words, a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix
> connects and receives acknowledgement from the rem
On 2010-01-18 Frank Bonnet wrote:
> I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
>
> actually I use :
> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> \check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
>
> on the mailhub which is not "Internet visible" but I would like to reject
> with th
On 18/01/10 07:31, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other
words, a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix
connects and receives acknowledgement from the remo
Stefan Foerster:
> * Wietse Venema :
> > This is implemented by specifying FILTER actions with empty next-hop
> > destinations in access maps or header/body_checks, and by configuring
> > in master.cf one Postfix SMTP client for each SMTP source IP address,
> > where each client has its own "-o myh
Daniel L. Miller:
> Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
> notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other words,
> a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix connects and
> receives acknowledgement from the remote site, and then
Wietse Venema:
> Stefan Foerster:
> > * Wietse Venema :
> > > This is implemented by specifying FILTER actions with empty next-hop
> > > destinations in access maps or header/body_checks, and by configuring
> > > in master.cf one Postfix SMTP client for each SMTP source IP address,
> > > where each
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:49:49 +0100
> Von: Michael Reck
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
> Hi List,
>
> I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
> DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--with-use
Zitat von Patrick Ben Koetter :
* Michael Reck :
Hi List,
I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--with-userdir=) for various
functions which is not what i want. dspam also needs per user
activation.
Anything except Mailstorage is placed i
Zitat von Steve :
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:49:49 +0100
Von: Michael Reck
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
Hi List,
I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> The goal is simple - there are some people & businesses my company
> needs to correspond with no matter how strict my filter, and no
> matter how badly the remote site is configured. Waiting to receive
> a message carrying critical business informati
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
>
> Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
> hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
> there is any method currently existing within Postfix to accomplish this
>
> with SQL, there is no need to use pcre. just do that in the SQL query to
> avoid having to keep an external file up to date...
...except that the "+" (and everything between it and the "@") is *not*
actually part of the email address. To use your address as an example:
When Postfix receives an
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other words,
a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix connects and
receives acknowledgement from the remo
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
> I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
> to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
> policy daemon doesn't need to have a big DNS mess to resolve all the
> recipient MX ips.
LuKreme put forth on 1/18/2010 12:46 AM:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
>
> I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
Do you use either of these restrictions?
reject_unknown_client_hostname
reject_unknown_re
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:12:00AM -0800, Charles Boling wrote:
mouss:
> > with SQL, there is no need to use pcre. just do that in the SQL
> > query to avoid having to keep an external file up to date...
>
> ...except that the "+" (and everything between it and the "@") is
> *not* actually part
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> > I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
> > to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
> > policy daemon doesn't need to have a big DNS mess to resolve al
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently existing within Postfix to accomp
Daniel L. Miller:
> Henrik K wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
> >> hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
> >> there is any method cu
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:40:40 +0100
> Von: Michael Reck
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
> Zitat von Steve :
>
> >
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:49:49 +0100
> >> V
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 04:28:37PM +0100, Michael Reck wrote:
> Anyway, our customers complaining the usual way ( to much spam in
> my inbox...) and are not getting smarter (i don`t want to train
> SA...) so i must bear the challenge :)
Such is the story with content filtering for spam control. It
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there i
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how,
> currently, to implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing
> sender validation into the policy daemon.
Right, IIUC what you're doing, you would have the policy
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how, currently, to
> implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing sender validation into
> the policy daemon. I don't see any way, for example, to call another
>
/dev/rob0 wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how,
currently, to implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing
sender validation into the policy daemon.
Right, IIUC what you're doing, yo
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how, currently, to
implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing sender validation into
the policy daemon. I don't see any way, for exampl
Frank Bonnet put forth on 1/18/2010 4:19 AM:
> Hello
>
> I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
>
> actually I use :
> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> \check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
Do you want to reject an email address, or an IP address? If em
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
> A point - and a good one for initialization of the whitelist. However,
> this does not address the need to add new addresses to the list
> automatically. Example - our company changes insurance brokers, and
> needs to receive forms from the new
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
A point - and a good one for initialization of the whitelist. However,
this does not address the need to add new addresses to the list
automatically. Example - our company changes insurance brokers, and
needs to receive
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
The goal is simple - there are some people & businesses my company
needs to correspond with no matter how strict my filter, and no
matter how badly the remote site is configured. Waiting to receive
a message carrying critical
On 18-Jan-2010, at 10:28, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> LuKreme put forth on 1/18/2010 12:46 AM:
>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
>>
>> I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
>
> Do you use either of these rest
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:54PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> > I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
> > to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
> > policy daemon d
On 18-Jan-2010, at 11:37, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> This thread is NOT about address validation, it is about automatic
> whitelisting of addresses (as senders) that are observed in outgoing
> mail as recipients. No validation is required.
This should be pretty easy to add into a greylisting servic
The following solution solves 99% of the problem:
- IF mail is from a local (or authenticated) client
- AND the sender has already passed "reject_unlisted_sender"
- THEN store the (sender, recipient) pair in a whitelist.
This can be done with trivial modification of an existing greylisting
poli
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 1:30 PM:
>> If you _need_ a home brew solution _now_, start small and inelegant,
>> getting
>> most of the functionality you want/need. This can be done with simple
>> scripts
>> and cron. After it's working relatively well, _then_ spend time
>> creating t
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:49 -0800
> Von: "Daniel L. Miller"
> An: Postfix users
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
> >
> >
> >> A point - and a good one for init
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:05, "Steve" wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:49 -0800
Von: "Daniel L. Miller"
An: Postfix users
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
A point -
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
> I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if you
> want my modifications, contact me off-list.
I'm surprised you actually mentioned a solution whose core feature is
challenge/response. C/R is one of those "cur
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if
you
want my modifications, contact me off-list.
I'm surprised you actually mentioned a solution whose core fe
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
>>
>>> I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if you
>>> want my modifications, contac
On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:30, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net)
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
> >
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
> >>
> >>> I have achieved this wit
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:17:43 -0500
> Von: "Mark Nernberg (gmail account)"
> An: Steve
> CC: "postfix-users@postfix.org"
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:05, "Steve" wrote:
>
> >
> > Original-Nachri
--
sent from my mobile phone
On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:54, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Mark N
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:06:13 -0500
> Von: "Mark Nernberg (gmail account)"
> An: Postfix users
> CC: Postfix users
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
>
>
> --
> sent from my mobile phone
>
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:54, wie...@porcupin
Charles Boling a écrit :
>> with SQL, there is no need to use pcre. just do that in the SQL query to
>> avoid having to keep an external file up to date...
>
> ...except that the "+" (and everything between it and the "@") is *not*
> actually part of the email address.
of course the "+" is part
Dear all,
Do you have any way to check domain of email and IP of sending host before
relay it? I'm trying to setup a gateway which accept relay for some IP
address, and make sure this IP can only send email from domain(s) it owned.
TIA,
giobuon
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:56:46AM +0700, Tr???n Tr???ng T???n wrote:
> Do you have any way to check domain of email and IP of sending host before
> relay it? I'm trying to setup a gateway which accept relay for some IP
> address, and make sure this IP can only send email from domain(s) it owned.
My mail server has been getting a fair amount of spam hits that have been
rejected but the sender address is spoofed with the recipient's address.
This generates an NDR to the recipient with the spam. I would like to
suppress NDRs of this kind but not legitimate NDRs.
Regards,
David Koski
da.
Dear list,
I am trying to drop outgoing emails having particular email-id in its
[TO] field. Say myn...@domain1.com and myna...@domain2.com, hence any
mail destined for myn...@domain1.com or myna...@domain2.com will be
dropped . To achieve this I have made a file sender_reject with
following
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 09:56 +0700, Trần Trọng Tấn wrote:
> Dear all,
> Do you have any way to check domain of email and IP of sending host
> before relay it? I'm trying to setup a gateway which accept relay for
> some IP address, and make sure this IP can only send email from
> domain(s) it owned.
53 matches
Mail list logo
