Hi List,
I have a internal mailrelay, that I would like to provide following service:
1. mail to our own domain is send directly to our externally hosted
(outsourced) mailserver
2. mail to external domains are relayed through ISP-mail-relay only for
specific domains
I have the following in my
On Jan 3, 2012, at 8:11 AM, Michael Maymann wrote:
Hi List,
I have a internal mailrelay, that I would like to provide following service:
1. mail to our own domain is send directly to our externally hosted
(outsourced) mailserver
2. mail to external domains are relayed through
* Michael Maymann mich...@maymann.org:
Hi List,
I have a internal mailrelay, that I would like to provide following service:
1. mail to our own domain is send directly to our externally hosted
(outsourced) mailserver
2. mail to external domains are relayed through ISP-mail-relay only for
Hi Ralf,
Thanks - I now have...
---
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
# transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
relayhost = [our_isp_mailrelay]
/etc/postfix/transport:
#our_own_domain.com smtp:our_external_hosted_mailserver
#servicepartner1 relay:our_isp_mailrelay
#servicepartner2
* Michael Maymann mich...@maymann.org:
Hi Ralf,
Thanks - I now have...
---
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
# transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
relayhost = [our_isp_mailrelay]
/etc/postfix/transport:
#our_own_domain.com smtp:our_external_hosted_mailserver
#servicepartner1
Hi Ralf,
Thanks again :-) !,
If I keep relayhost there, it will still be possible to send mails to
others than my whitelisted transport_maps, or will transport_maps make
relayhost irrelevant (not working / commented out) ?
I guess my
our_own_domain.com smtp:our_external_hosted_mailserver
should
I could sure use it!
TMDA when generating challenge messages sends a 'From:' based on the $RECIPIENT
variable. Unfortunately, my primary addresses are all aliases, where I'd like
those to be canonical, and $RECIPIENT is post-expansion. With the documented
ORIGINAL_RECIPIENT to hand, this
* Michael Maymann mich...@maymann.org:
Hi Ralf,
Thanks again :-) !,
If I keep relayhost there, it will still be possible to send mails to
others than my whitelisted transport_maps,
yes
or will transport_maps make relayhost irrelevant (not working /
commented out) ?
no.
--
Ralf
Hello
I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
Any infos/links/advices welcome
Thanks and happy new year.
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 04:26:57PM +0100, Frank Bonnet wrote:
I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
You probably want this:
http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/
--
Mason Loring Bliss
You can also try amavis http://www.amavis.org/ and comine it with clamav.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.orgwrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 04:26:57PM +0100, Frank Bonnet wrote:
I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
antivirus
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 09:26:57 Frank Bonnet wrote:
I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
Any infos/links/advices welcome
One link, Google, would have easily found clamav.
Info/advice: with
From: Jeroen Geilman jeroen at adaptr.nl
Subject:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c4EFE2FA1.1050903%40adaptr.nl%3eRe:
Relay for many local systems, but restrict internet forwarding?
Date: 2011-12-30 21:39:45 GMT (3 days, 18 hours and 26 minutes ago)
LR Currently, we have a
On 2012-01-03 12:09 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
Info/advice: with postscreen(8), sane HELO restrictions, and good
DNSBLs, clamav is not going to get much use.
Clamav, with the sane-security sigs, most certainly does block a lot of
phising scams that would not otherwise be blocked.
On 1/3/2012 11:09 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 09:26:57 Frank Bonnet wrote:
I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
Any infos/links/advices welcome
One link, Google, would have easily
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 11:28:09 Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-01-03 12:09 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
Info/advice: with postscreen(8), sane HELO restrictions, and good
DNSBLs, clamav is not going to get much use.
Clamav, with the sane-security sigs, most certainly does block a
Am 03.01.2012 18:30, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
To add to this sentiment, haven't most/all the viri/malware pushers
switched from an email delivery vector to drive-by downloads? I can't
recall the last time I saw a viral email attachment.
our barracuda saw 2929 in the last year
compared with
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 08:49:30 Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
I could sure use it!
TMDA when generating challenge messages sends a 'From:' based on
TMDA is challenge/response, which basically means: to fight your own
spam, you spam innocent victims. As much as I dislike spam, I would
* /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk:
On Tuesday 03 January 2012 09:26:57 Frank Bonnet wrote:
I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
Any infos/links/advices welcome
One link, Google, would have easily found
On 2012-01-03 1:18 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
Also blocking unwanted attachments and double extensions (with
mime_header_checks or amavis) leaves only little stuff for clamav to
eat.
Care to share your header_checks for blocking 'double extensions' (if
you're
Am 03.01.2012 19:42, schrieb Charles Marcus:
On 2012-01-03 1:18 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
Also blocking unwanted attachments and double extensions (with
mime_header_checks or amavis) leaves only little stuff for clamav to
eat.
Care to share your header_checks
* Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com:
On 2012-01-03 1:18 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
Also blocking unwanted attachments and double extensions (with
mime_header_checks or amavis) leaves only little stuff for
On 1/3/2012 12:00 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.01.2012 18:30, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
To add to this sentiment, haven't most/all the viri/malware pushers
switched from an email delivery vector to drive-by downloads? I can't
recall the last time I saw a viral email attachment.
our
Am 03.01.2012 21:21, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
On 1/3/2012 12:00 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.01.2012 18:30, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
To add to this sentiment, haven't most/all the viri/malware pushers
switched from an email delivery vector to drive-by downloads? I can't
recall the last
On 1/3/12 12:36 AM, Lorens Kockum wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 06:00:46PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I have a 'border' postfix MTA that doesn't host any mailboxes, indeed it
doesn't even know what the valid usernames are for the domain.
It merely serves to check messages for viruses,
%x When the input key is an address of the form
user+extension@domain, %x is replaced by the SQL
quoted recipient_delimiter and extension of the
local part of the address. Otherwise, %x is
empty. If the localpart is empty, the query is
suppressed and returns no results.
Hi,
I thought I'd check the logs today, and I found something curious to me:
Jan 3 15:58:44 bilgisayarciniz postfix/smtpd[6179]: NOQUEUE: reject:
RCPT from unknown[85.95.233.13]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client
host [85.95.233.13] blocked using sbl.spamhaus.org;
* Tolga to...@ozses.net:
Client host [85.95.233.13] blocked using sbl.spamhaus.org;
...
reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org,
...
/dev/rob0:
%x When the input key is an address of the form
user+extension@domain, %x is replaced by the SQL
quoted recipient_delimiter and extension of the
local part of the address. Otherwise, %x is
empty. If the localpart is empty, the query is
suppressed and
Am 03.01.2012 22:37, schrieb Tolga:
Hi,
I thought I'd check the logs today, and I found something curious to me:
Jan 3 15:58:44 bilgisayarciniz postfix/smtpd[6179]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown[85.95.233.13]: 554 5.7.1
Service unavailable; Client host [85.95.233.13] blocked
On 1/3/2012 3:37 PM, Tolga wrote:
Hi,
I thought I'd check the logs today, and I found something curious to
me:
Jan 3 15:58:44 bilgisayarciniz postfix/smtpd[6179]: NOQUEUE:
reject: RCPT from unknown[85.95.233.13]: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host [85.95.233.13] blocked using
I read through the Multi Instance ReadMe and didn't see an answer for my
question so I thought I'd just ask.
When I specify a configuration in the default instance of Postfix that
setting seems to be inherited by the other instances.
For example: I set message_size_limit on the default instance
On 2012-01-03 04:33, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On 1/2/12 7:08 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 01/02/2012 02:00 AM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I have a 'border' postfix MTA that doesn't host any mailboxes, indeed it
doesn't even know what the valid usernames are for the domain.
It merely serves
David DeFranco:
I read through the Multi Instance ReadMe and didn't see an answer for my
question so I thought I'd just ask.
When I specify a configuration in the default instance of Postfix that
setting seems to be inherited by the other instances.
Where does Postfix documentation promise
On 2012-01-03 23:16, David DeFranco wrote:
I read through the Multi Instance ReadMe and didn't see an answer
for my question so I thought I'd just ask.
When I specify a configuration in the default instance of Postfix that
setting seems to be inherited by the other instances.
I think
I didn't see it in the documentation, that's why I asked.
I double checked my execution of the postconf command. I ran postconf with
the -c option and I also ran postconf with postmulti both returned the same
results.
Of course, now I can't reproduce what I observed before.
I realize now that
I do not usually announce FreeBSD port version bumps here, but in this
case, I felt it appropriate. Sorry to those for whom this is not
relevant.
I have updated the development port to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20120102 and
removed the erroneous conf/post-install patch that was discussed earlier
in
* Yep the mistake i did was that i was grepping for smtp_discard instead of
smtpd_discard
postconf | grep smtp_disc
smtp_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps =
smtp_discard_ehlo_keywords =
postconf | grep smtpd_disc
postscreen_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps =
OK thanks to you guys, I have enough information
Le 03/01/2012 16:26, Frank Bonnet a écrit :
Hello
I'm searching for a friend (who has very few money) an open source
antivirus scanner for email server that works with Postfix.
Any infos/links/advices welcome
Thanks and happy new year.
39 matches
Mail list logo
