Zitat von Frank Bonnet f.bon...@esiee.fr:
Hello
Does anyone use VAMS antivirus ( http://www.centralcommand.com )
with Postfix ?
We used it some years ago as there was a cheap non-commercial license
available. It worked well at that time and should be trouble free to
install as
On 7/6/2011 12:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Some table types such as CIDR ignore the domain name. With table
types such as CIDR, regexp and pcre, check_client_access does no
prefix/suffix lookups.
Given this, a pcre rule with ``/:/ DUNNO'' is sufficient to skip
IPv6 addresses.
Thanks for
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:36:02AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I received a request to ignore IPv4 addresses as well in order to
improve performance. But given the extensive IF loops it seems
we'd only save something like a few picoseconds of CPU time (30
expressions processed). If that's
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:36:02AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I received a request to ignore IPv4 addresses as well in order to
improve performance. But given the extensive IF loops it seems
we'd only save something like a few picoseconds of CPU time
On 2011-07-06 5:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
ASSP (anti-spam proxy) has this ability (to deliver to two different
destinations) if you put it in front of your postfix server...
http://assp.sourceforge.net/
I would not recommend putting proxy code in front of Postfix, however,
if ASSP is a
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
The anchors at both ends mean you are safe. You start with ^ and
end with $, so nothing else can sneak in between those.
A simpler expression to accomplish the same thing:
On 7/7/2011 7:48 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
The anchors at both ends mean you are safe. You start with ^ and
end with $, so nothing else can sneak in between those.
A simpler expression to
I have working postfix setup but there is one thing I don't quite
understand where it comes from (and that bothers me)
I only use one map which is a sender_canonical map to translate local
user to a valid external email address. This works fine.
However postfix also adds the full name (as taken
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 08:24:42AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 7/7/2011 7:48 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
The anchors at both ends mean you are safe. You start with ^
and end with $, so nothing
Greetings,
I found an interesting alternative to spamassassin and was curious if
anyone on postfix-users was using this, or had any opinion?
its called rspamd, and is developed by a russian fellow
named Vsevolod Stakhov
https://bitbucket.org/vstakhov/rspamd/wiki/Home
some of its features
Hi All,
I need your help for a problem with Postfix.
My postfix make several errors and I can not understand why.
The error:
Jul 7 17:16:42 mx02 postfix/spawn[9807]: warning:
/etc/postfix/policy/sender_check.pl: process id 9812: command time
limit exceeded
Jul 7 17:16:42 mx02
Damien Robinet:
Hi All,
I need your help for a problem with Postfix.
My postfix make several errors and I can not understand why.
The error:
Jul 7 17:16:42 mx02 postfix/spawn[9807]: warning:
/etc/postfix/policy/sender_check.pl: process id 9812: command time
limit exceeded
See
Hi Wietse,
Thank for your reply, I've add this line my_service_time_limit =
3600 but I've alway the trouble ...
Jul 7 18:18:48 mx02 postfix/spawn[19801]: warning:
/etc/postfix/policy/dunno.pl: process id 19802: command time limit
exceeded
Jul 7 18:19:48 mx02 postfix/spawn[20189]: warning:
Damien Robinet:
Hi Wietse,
Thank for your reply, I've add this line my_service_time_limit =
3600 but I've alway the trouble ...
Jul 7 18:18:48 mx02 postfix/spawn[19801]: warning:
/etc/postfix/policy/dunno.pl: process id 19802: command time limit
exceeded
Jul 7 18:19:48 mx02
I use SASl simple mechanism with PAM (plaintext)
smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous
I want to encyypt SASl session with TLS
What sets smtpd_sasl_security_options and sasl_tls_security_options ?
Thanks
Gaby
Hi Wietse,
Sorry I've forgot my main.cf, you can find it here:
http://pastebin.com/Ydt0Xqtp
And the master.cf:
http://pastebin.com/G0MW6rZw
Bests Regards,
Damien
2011/7/7 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Damien Robinet:
Hi Wietse,
Thank for your reply, I've add this line
On 7/7/2011 11:51 AM, gaby wrote:
I use SASl simple mechanism with PAM (plaintext)
smtpd_sasl_security_options
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_sasl_security_options
= noanonymous
I want to encyypt SASl session with TLS
What sets smtpd_sasl_security_options and
/etc/postfix/master.cf:
sendercheck unix - n n - - spawn
user=nobody argv=/etc/postfix/policy/sender_check.pl
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html#client_config says:
To create a policy service that listens on a UNIX-domain socket
called
On 2011-07-07 01:54, Simon wrote:
Hi There, We are using Postix 2.7.1-1+squeeze1 on Debian Squeeze. I
have a quick question regarding sasl auth with mysql and multiple
servers...
Is there a way to configure postfix to get its SMTP auth data from two
different mysql servers with different DB
On 2011-07-07 16:09, Johan Persson wrote:
I have working postfix setup but there is one thing I don't quite
understand where it comes from (and that bothers me)
I only use one map which is a sender_canonical map to translate local
user to a valid external email address. This works fine.
I am using Postfix verions 2.3.3 on a VPS managed by Plesk.
There are two static IPs associated with my install, let's call them
aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and sss.ttt.uuu.vvv
When I run ifconfig I see the two interface venet0:0 and venet0:1
Mail goes out fine until I tell the main.cf to use:
Please don't highjack other users threads, always start your own message
to the group.
It looks like it can't talk to 127.0.0.1:10027
Jul 7 13:00:34 who postfix/smtp[40187]: connect to
127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]: Connection timed out (port 10027)
Jul 7 13:00:34 who postfix/smtp[40187]:
Postfix stable release 2.8.4
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.8.4.html]
Postfix stable release 2.8.4 is available. This contains fixes and
workarounds that were already included with the Postfix 2.9
experimental
Thanks. After looking into this I verified that using a manual SMTP
sending this does not happen and the conclusion is therefore that the
simple mail command will create this from address based on the passwd
file. That surprised me since I thought that the mail command didn't
do any elaborate
Le 07/07/2011 13:44, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:36:02AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I received a request to ignore IPv4 addresses as well in order to
improve performance. But given the extensive IF loops it seems
we'd only save
Le 06/07/2011 23:14, Noel Jones a écrit :
On 7/6/2011 3:57 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 06/07/2011 22:52, Noel Jones a écrit :
On 7/6/2011 3:44 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 06/07/2011 07:07, Simon Deziel a écrit :
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:35:56PM +0200, mouss wrote:
/^[0-9\.]$/
is equivalent to
any string formed with digits and/or dots
No, just any single character that is a digit or .. You left off the
* or + to make it a string composed of one (or zero) or more of said.
with pcre; you can
I apologize for the double posting.
Here is my issue:
I am using Postfix verions 2.3.3 on a VPS managed by Plesk.
There are two static IPs associated with my install, let's call them
aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and sss.ttt.uuu.vvv
When I run ifconfig I see the two interface venet0:0 and venet0:1
Mail
Le 07/07/2011 21:23, Jeffrey Starin a écrit :
I am using Postfix verions 2.3.3 on a VPS managed by Plesk.
There are two static IPs associated with my install, let's call them
aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and sss.ttt.uuu.vvv
When I run ifconfig I see the two interface venet0:0 and venet0:1
Mail goes
Le 07/07/2011 22:48, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:35:56PM +0200, mouss wrote:
/^[0-9\.]$/
is equivalent to
any string formed with digits and/or dots
No, just any single character that is a digit or .. You left off the
* or + to make it a string composed of
On 7/7/2011 3:42 PM, mouss wrote:
Noel, are you telling me that check_reverse... will match the client IP?
my understanding is that it will only match against the PTR.
It's even documented.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#check_reverse_client_hostname_access
And I can say with
On 7/7/2011 10:14 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 08:24:42AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 7/7/2011 7:48 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
The anchors at both ends mean you are safe. You start
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 7/7/2011 3:42 PM, mouss wrote:
Noel, are you telling me that check_reverse... will match the client IP?
my understanding is that it will only match against the PTR.
It's even documented.
On 7/7/2011 7:37 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
I'm currently using Stan's pcre file with check_client_access. But
even after re-reading this while thread and that doc link, I can't
tell whether I should keep it as-is or switch to
check_reverse_client_hostname_access.
SteveJ
Yes, absolutely use
On 7/7/2011 4:58 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 07/07/2011 21:23, Jeffrey Starin a écrit :
I am using Postfix verions 2.3.3 on a VPS managed by Plesk.
There are two static IPs associated with my install, let's call them
aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and sss.ttt.uuu.vvv
When I run ifconfig I see the two interface
Hi!
While crawling trough my logs, I've noticed a couple of bots getting
rejected because of Improper use of SMTP command pipelining because of the
reject_unauth_pipelining in smptd_recipient_restrictions. So I decided to
give the old sleep trick a try. Only for unknown hosts, ofc...
The
On 7/7/2011 11:20 PM, ricardus1867 wrote:
Hi!
While crawling trough my logs, I've noticed a couple of bots getting
rejected because of Improper use of SMTP command pipelining because of the
reject_unauth_pipelining in smptd_recipient_restrictions. So I decided to
give the old sleep trick
On 7/7/2011 11:20 PM, ricardus1867 wrote:
While crawling trough my logs, I've noticed a couple of bots getting
rejected because of Improper use of SMTP command pipelining because of
the
reject_unauth_pipelining in smptd_recipient_restrictions. So I decided
to
give the old sleep trick
38 matches
Mail list logo
