On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:31:49PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I heard that there are firewalls/security appliances that supposedly
can distinguish somebody using telnet from a machine speaking SMTP.
I must admit, it sounds feasible
Le 09/06/2010 23:19, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Philippe Chaintreuil:
One of our users sent a large (about 10MB) e-mail to Yahoo. Yahoo has
not been accepting it, they don't give a reason, they just disconnect
after getting the whole message:
On 2010-06-10 Jerrale Gayle wrote:
On 6/10/2010 6:31 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Jerrale Gayle wrote:
I want to accept all mail to non-existent users, then bounce, so
that people can't probe for valid users to know wherer to start a
brute force.
This is a horrible
-Message d'origine-
De : owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
us...@postfix.org] De la part de Jeroen Geilman
Envoyé : vendredi 11 juin 2010 01:06
À : postfix-users@postfix.org
Objet : Re: recipient_bcc_maps override
On 06/11/2010 12:59 AM, Emmanuel Bailleul
* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
Anyway. Is there such a thing? Does anybody use such a thing?
Why do you want to discriminate against telnet 25?
What do i know? I don't do this nonsense :) 'm just asking
Administrators of sites that want to trouble-shoot connectivity
On Thursday 10 June 2010 19:51:51 Florin Andrei wrote:
One of the tricks some people seem to use is creating a dedicated
transport for the slow destination. I'm reading the tuning and qshape
README documents, and there are a lot of good suggestions there, but I
was wondering what are the
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 13:48:24 PM +1200, Mike Hutchinson
(packetl...@ping.net.nz) wrote:
I had thought, whilst I was writing the E-Mail, that this could
deserve a howto or manual section...
I would be quite interested to read such a howto. I also happen to
publish FOSS related tips and tricks,
On 9 juin 2010, at 17:31, Wietse Venema wrote:
It's ok for my all my clients but one. It's an appliance, so I
cannot change anything about its way to handle SMTP protocol.
Besides making this configurable for Amavisd-new, the other
option is to use the Postfix 2.7 smtpd_command_filter
On 9 juin 2010, at 23:42, Noel Jones wrote:
For problems with amavisd-new, better to ask on the amavis-users list.
I know that, but I've already googled for a fix on Amavisd's side, with no
luck. The only bug report I've found is on Debian's site, claiming that Postfix
should not accept the
Hi,
I need to forward a single user to another smtp-relay. The rest of the users of
this domain is delivered local. So I put her into /etc/postfix/transport:
u...@testdomain.de smtp:[212.6.xxx.xxx]
did a postmap transport, reloaded postfix. But nothing happens.
I thought, maybe there' a
Dear list,
It recently came to my attention that our canonical rewriting had
stopped working.
Further inspection led me to the information on the site that default
behaviour was changed in Postfix 2.2. Fine no problem, I should have
seen it. As this is already couple of years ago and
Mike Hutchinson:
I had thought, whilst I was writing the E-Mail, that this could deserve a
howto or manual section, perhaps briefly describing a general situation that
would reflect the real world problem of delivery of E-Mail to servers like
Yahoo/Google, and how postfix can be configured to
Rudy Gevaert:
Dear list,
It recently came to my attention that our canonical rewriting had
stopped working.
Further inspection led me to the information on the site that default
behaviour was changed in Postfix 2.2. Fine no problem, I should have
seen it. As this is already couple
currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ...
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, permit
Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive?
should I just let spamassassin handle this and score accordingly?
Thanks in advance,
On Friday 11 June 2010 13:30:44 Curtis Maurand wrote:
currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ...
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
permit
Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive?
should I just let spamassassin
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:48:53PM +0100, Simon Waters wrote:
On Friday 11 June 2010 13:30:44 Curtis Maurand wrote:
currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ...
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
permit
Is flat out rejecting clients on the
Quoting Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Rudy Gevaert:
Dear list,
It recently came to my attention that our canonical rewriting had
stopped working.
Further inspection led me to the information on the site that default
behaviour was changed in Postfix 2.2. Fine no problem, I should have
Rudy Gevaert:
Quoting Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Rudy Gevaert:
Dear list,
It recently came to my attention that our canonical rewriting had
stopped working.
Further inspection led me to the information on the site that default
behaviour was changed in Postfix 2.2. Fine
On 2010-06-10 5:51 PM, Jerrale Gayle wrote:
smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient = no
Would this be better put by itself or under
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unlisted_recipient=no?
I want to accept all mail to non-existent users, then bounce, so
that people can't probe for valid
On 2010-06-10 7:17 PM, Jerrale Gayle wrote:
I want to accept all mail to non-existent users, then bounce, so
that people can't probe for valid users to know wherer to start a
brute force.
This is a horrible idea; please do not do this. Google 'backscatter'.
IF I have repeating
Does Postfix consider architettobellucci.com an FQDN? I've always
understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my understanding
of FQDN is correct, then a spam slipped through that I believe should have
been rejected by reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname. What have I configured
Stan Hoeppner:
Does Postfix consider architettobellucci.com an FQDN? I've always
understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my understanding
of FQDN is correct, then a spam slipped through that I believe should have
been rejected by reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname. What have
postfix-2.8-20100323,
FreeBSD ports: mail/postfix-current, databases/db50
/etc/make.conf: WITH_BDB_VER=50
--- src/util/dict_db.c~ 2010-01-02 22:28:08.0 +0100
+++ src/util/dict_db.c 2010-06-11 15:50:48.0 +0200
@@ -676,5 +676,5 @@
if (type == DB_HASH db-set_h_nelem(db,
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Geilman
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:02 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: how to stop backscatter without check headers
On 06/11/2010 12:44 AM, motty.cruz wrote:
Is there a
Curtis Maurand wrote, On 6/11/10 8:30 AM:
currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ...
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, permit
Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive?
No.
Or, yes. Maybe. A lot depends on who
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote (on Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:57:42AM +0200):
Administrators of sites that want to trouble-shoot connectivity issues
with your server will use telnet 25 from time to time. There is no
need to block this, it is by far the least likely source of any
significant spam
Mark Martinec:
postfix-2.8-20100323,
FreeBSD ports: mail/postfix-current, databases/db50
/etc/make.conf: WITH_BDB_VER=50
A similar change was included in the June 8th releases of Postfix
2.6.7 and 2.7.1.
Wietse
--- src/util/dict_db.c~ 2010-01-02 22:28:08.0 +0100
+++
Is there a way I can ratelimit messages on sender id.
Off late I have seen that my spamtraps are being thrashed by random
yahoo or hotmail sender (forged ) mails .. all identical fake pharmacy
spams.
Infact I get upto 300 connections a minute for a singe mailbox and that
takes up all the smtpd
On 6/11/2010 10:28 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
postfix-2.8-20100323,
Seems to work fine.
There wasn't any API change in db-open between 4.8 and 5.0
as far as I can tell.
Mark
You must have missed the ChangeLog on the website:
20100601
Cleanup: Postfix LDAP client support for RFC
Curtis Maurand put forth on 6/11/2010 7:30 AM:
currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ...
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
permit
Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive?
should I just let spamassassin handle
Ram:
Is there a way I can ratelimit messages on sender id.
Off late I have seen that my spamtraps are being thrashed by random
yahoo or hotmail sender (forged ) mails .. all identical fake pharmacy
spams.
Infact I get upto 300 connections a minute for a singe mailbox and that
takes up
Wietse Venema put forth on 6/11/2010 9:21 AM:
Stan Hoeppner:
Does Postfix consider architettobellucci.com an FQDN? I've always
understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my
understanding
of FQDN is correct, then a spam slipped through that I believe should have
been
* N. Yaakov Ziskind aw...@ziskind.us:
Kinda reminds me of the Donald Westlake story, which described a
fine-arts painter who took to counterfeiting $20s; the Secret Service
let him go with a slap on the wrist, they said, when they figured out
it him hours to produce each note. :-)
Exactly
I vaguely remember managing an email server around 1997 and there was
a checkbox to disable telnet access. IIRC it was Imail on windows NT
4, but that was a long time ago. I do remember thinking it was odd
that they could discriminate, but it seemed to work - though I'm not
sure how or why.
-B
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:31:49 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
[...]
I must admit, it sounds feasible (timing between keystrokes etc.),
With respect to detection, is this relevant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telnet#Telnet_data
--
If you have an apple and I have
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:40:24AM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
Beyond the FP risk, there is a more subtle issue of whether the
benefit of rejecting spam cheaply is worth the potential cost of not
having a steady stream of representative spam feeding the adaptive
dynamic features of a scoring
On 06/11/2010 04:40 PM, motty.cruz wrote:
*From:* owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeroen Geilman
*Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:02 PM
*To:* postfix-users@postfix.org
*Subject:* Re: how to stop backscatter without check headers
On
On 06/11/2010 05:48 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Wietse Venema put forth on 6/11/2010 9:21 AM:
Stan Hoeppner:
Does Postfix consider architettobellucci.com an FQDN? I've always
understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my understanding
of FQDN is correct, then a spam
On 06/11/2010 11:00 AM, Joern Merkel wrote:
Hi,
I need to forward a single user to another smtp-relay. The rest of the
users of this domain is delivered local. So I put her into
/etc/postfix/transport:
u...@testdomain.de smtp:[212.6.xxx.xxx]
Where are the logs of attempting this after
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Geilman
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:32 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: how to stop backscatter without check headers
On 06/11/2010 04:40 PM, motty.cruz wrote:
From:
On 06/11/2010 08:00 PM, motty.cruz wrote:
*From:* owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeroen Geilman
*Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 10:32 AM
*To:* postfix-users@postfix.org
*Subject:* Re: how to stop backscatter without check headers
On
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 16:48 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
Thanks for suggestion, I'll apply it.
You're welcome.
But if somebody can help discover (configuration) error
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 1:37 PM:
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 16:48 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
Thanks for suggestion, I'll apply it.
You're welcome.
But if somebody can
В Птн, 11/06/2010 в 13:54 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 1:37 PM:
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 16:48 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
Thanks for
Which is the perfect way to write an upstart job for postfix?
context: upstart tries tracing forks of a daemon 1 or two times
depending on the daemonType setting. Then it traces when a daemon dies
so that it can restart it.
postfix start forkes two times. But it forkes some additional times to
do
Marc Weber:
# start the daemon:
exec libexec/master
You must start and stop Postfix with the postfix command.
Invoking the master directly is not supported.
Wietse
I'm looking for information on restricting users who send mail through our
MX servers to authenticated users only, we currently use SASL2/MySQL to
store valid user info, I'll try to include as much info as possible.
The reason I ask is because it seems that as long as the domain is found in
the
On 06/12/2010 02:08 AM, Walter Pinto wrote:
I'm looking for information on restricting users who send mail through
our MX servers to authenticated users only, we currently use
SASL2/MySQL to store valid user info, I'll try to include as much info
as possible.
The reason I ask is because it
48 matches
Mail list logo
