- Original Message -
From: Charlie Orford
To: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
Hi Wietse,
Although the address caching should have worked as you describe, we
found that it failed for a
Hello
Does anyone use VAMS antivirus ( http://www.centralcommand.com ) with
Postfix ?
thanks
Hi
I confuse smtp_tls. parameters setings (i.e. smtp_tls_CAfile=...) with
smtpd_tls_ parameters setings.
For postfix witth TLS which settings is used smtpd_tls.. or smtp_tls...?
What port is good for sent email via outlook express with postfix TLS 25 with
requires a secure
On 2011-07-05 gaby wrote:
I confuse smtp_tls. parameters setings (i.e. smtp_tls_CAfile=...)
with smtpd_tls_ parameters setings.
For postfix witth TLS which settings is used smtpd_tls.. or smtp_tls...?
Depends.
Do you want encrypted connections from somewhere TO Postfix? That is
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:35:56PM +0300, gaby wrote:
I confuse smtp_tls. parameters setings (i.e.
smtp_tls_CAfile=...) with smtpd_tls_ parameters setings.
For postfix witth TLS which settings is used smtpd_tls.. or
smtp_tls...?
A mail transfer agent such as Postfix is both a SMTP
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:24:19 -0500
/dev/rob0 articulated:
Outlook Express is buggy, broken, and not supported by its maker.
Generally a very poor choice, considering that many good and free
alternatives exist.
Yes, Outlook Express like Firefox-4 is no longer supported by its
maker. I
Reindl Harald:
Am 05.07.2011 16:55, schrieb Wietse Venema:
If no such problem exists, then we know that cache expiration
has nothing to do with the issue and we can move on.
When the address verify cache works properly, it should become
populated over time (by spammers, by legitimate
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
Reindl Harald:
Am 05.07.2011 16:55, schrieb Wietse Venema:
If no such problem exists, then we know that
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
Charlie Orford:
I will run the tests and get the output for you later tonight but my
suspicion
is that
I've been tasked with catching several bounce-back conditions (no longer
subscriber, connection refused, host not found, email address invalid, etc)
and adding the offending email address from our email server's messaging
list to prevent poisoning our mailserver's IP per several ISPs rules.
Charlie Orford:
I will run the tests and get the output for you later tonight but
my suspicion is that there was likely nothing wrong with the
address cache, just that a lot of addresses had never been probed
by the secondary mx as the primary mx is up virtually 99.9% of
the time.
Wietse:
I've been tasked with catching several bounce-back conditions (no longer
subscriber, connection refused, host not found, email address invalid, etc)
and adding the offending email address from our email server's messaging
list to prevent poisoning our mailserver's IP per several ISPs rules.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 01:42:09PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
Messages in my deferral queue are set to be removed after 5 days and I have
been instructed to catch the above stated conditions after 3 days to
auto-opt-out.
Just set the maximal_queue_lifetime to 3 days. If you're opting users out,
On 7/5/2011 1:38 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Charlie Orford:
I will run the tests and get the output for you later tonight but
my suspicion is that there was likely nothing wrong with the
address cache, just that a lot of addresses had never been probed
by the secondary mx as the primary mx is
I agree. However my main question is what is the best way of capturing these
bounces and and running an SQL insert to opt out the address. Is there a way
to append a command to be run upon a message being removed from the queue
via maximal_queue_lifetime?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Victor
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 01:52:45PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
I agree. However my main question is what is the best way of capturing these
bounces and and running an SQL insert to opt out the address. Is there a way
to append a command to be run upon a message being removed from the queue
via
- Original Message -
From: /dev/rob0
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:48:44AM -0700, Charlie Orford wrote:
unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit would
John Clark:
I've been tasked with catching several bounce-back conditions (no longer
subscriber, connection refused, host not found, email address invalid, etc)
and adding the offending email address from our email server's messaging
list to prevent poisoning our mailserver's IP per several
On 2011-07-05 21:41, Stefan Guenther wrote:
Hello,
we have set always_bcc = postmappe@localhost to get a copy of every
incoming and outgoing email.
The problem now is, that we do not only get one copy of every incoming
or outgoing email, but TWO.
There reason for this seems to be the
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema
To: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
snip
Fundamentally, both approaches rely on talking to the primary MX,
and therefore both approaches
Am 05.07.2011 21:41, schrieb Stefan Guenther:
Hello,
we have set always_bcc = postmappe@localhost to get a copy of every
incoming and outgoing email.
The problem now is, that we do not only get one copy of every incoming
or outgoing email, but TWO.
There reason for this seems to be the
- Original Message -
From: Noel Jones
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
Maybe a compromise?
How about running on the main MX
postmap -s btree:/path/verify | grep ':250 ' file
and then
Am 05.07.2011 23:00, schrieb Charlie Orford:
- Original Message -
From: Noel Jones
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
Maybe a compromise?
How about running on the main MX
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
snip
hm why not using mysql for the list of valid users and replication?
mysql-replication supports SSL, the
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 02:52:07PM -0700, David Pierce wrote:
I have a postfix instance on an admin-type node set to relay mail to a host
named relayhost, i.e., relayhost = relayhost. Now, relayhost is actually
an A record for the IP of the relayhost. Funny enough, I do believe this
worked
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 05:55:30PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 02:52:07PM -0700, David Pierce wrote:
I have a postfix instance on an admin-type node set to relay mail to a host
named relayhost, i.e., relayhost = relayhost. Now, relayhost is actually
an A record
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 02:52:07PM -0700, David Pierce wrote:
I have a postfix instance on an admin-type node set to relay mail to a
host
named relayhost, i.e., relayhost = relayhost. Now, relayhost
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 02:59:52PM -0700, David Pierce wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 02:52:07PM -0700, David Pierce wrote:
I have a postfix instance on an admin-type node set to relay mail to a
host
named relayhost, i.e., relayhost = relayhost. Now, relayhost is
actually
an A
On 7/5/2011 4:00 PM, Charlie Orford wrote:
For the above to work, I assume you could give check_recipient_access a
table containing: *@ on the left and the policy script on the right (i.e. to
force it
to fire the policy script for every recipient). Not sure if that actually
works or is
- Original Message -
From: Noel Jones
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit
To run a policy service on all addresses, add the
check_policy_service directive to your smtpd restrictions at
the
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
Jul 4 05:19:10 mx postfix/smtpd[10191]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail.python.org[2001:888:2000:d::a6]: 554
mail.python.org[2001:888:2000:d::a6]: Client host
On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
Jul 4 05:19:10 mx postfix/smtpd[10191]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail.python.org[2001:888:2000:d::a6]: 554
32 matches
Mail list logo
