Den 2012-05-08 15:43, Jona - DTNX Postmaster skrev:
The '550 ... rejected:' is Postfix, the rest is the reply Postfix got
from the SPF policy daemon. Customizing that reply may be another
option to clarify what is happening.
reject_unlisted_recipient before greylist / spf test solves this
Giuseppe Perna(gpe...@csait.eu)@Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:10:15PM +0200:
> hy,
> i have an old version of postfix.
> i have this problem: from my server with sender freelo...@hotmail.com
> leave hundreds of spam messages to the Internet, I analyzed the file /
> var / log / maillog and I see this:
> B
I have not yet run strace (as per Wietse's recommendation), but I think I may
have discovered the problem. My problem sounds very similar to the one
documented at the link below.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postfix/+bug/764096
I ran a quick test and, sure enough, the post
Wietse Venema:
> JDL:
> > Wietse,
> >
> > I have been running Postfix for over 10 years now. I am pretty
> > familiar with the general Postfix configurations and with chroot.
> > I also keep all of the files in /var/spool/postfix up to date. I
> > am fine with leaving it off. I just normally ha
hy,
i have an old version of postfix.
i have this problem: from my server with sender freelo...@hotmail.com
leave hundreds of spam messages to the Internet, I analyzed the file /
var / log / maillog and I see this:
BE80AB81E65 3272 Tue May 8 08:18:41 freelo...@hotmail.com
(host smart-relay.ma
JDL:
> Wietse,
>
> I have been running Postfix for over 10 years now. I am pretty
> familiar with the general Postfix configurations and with chroot.
> I also keep all of the files in /var/spool/postfix up to date. I
> am fine with leaving it off. I just normally have it on for some
> additiona
p@rick,
If you are referring to resolv.conf and associated files, then yes. All the
files in /var/spool/postfix/etc match those in /etc and the data in the those
files is correct.
Jim
On May 8, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * JDL :
>> On May 8, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Wietse Vene
* JDL :
> On May 8, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > JDL:
> >> I have been working through a problem for the last couple of hours.
> >>
> >> If have the following set in main.cf
> >>
> >>smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_unknown_client_hostname
> >>
> >> and the smtpd is chroot
Wietse,
I have been running Postfix for over 10 years now. I am pretty familiar with
the general Postfix configurations and with chroot. I also keep all of the
files in /var/spool/postfix up to date. I am fine with leaving it off. I just
normally have it on for some additional security.
I
JDL:
> I have been working through a problem for the last couple of hours.
>
> If have the following set in main.cf
>
> smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_unknown_client_hostname
>
> and the smtpd is chroot'ed in master.cf
>
> smtpd pass- - y - -
I have been working through a problem for the last couple of hours.
If have the following set in main.cf
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_unknown_client_hostname
and the smtpd is chroot'ed in master.cf
smtpd pass- - y - - smtpd
then every m
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:35:41AM +0530, Agnello George wrote:
> I have heard of the vulnerability that exists in SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 that
> could allow information disclosure if an attacker intercepts encrypted
> traffic served from an affected system. TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2, and all cipher
> suit
On May 8, 2012, at 14:34, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * James Seymour :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm using the SPF policy daemon. Works great (or appears to, anyway),
>> save one thing: The rejects claim "Recipient address rejected," when,
>> in reality, it's the sender's address that's being rejected. T
* James Seymour :
> Hi All,
>
> I'm using the SPF policy daemon. Works great (or appears to, anyway),
> save one thing: The rejects claim "Recipient address rejected," when,
> in reality, it's the sender's address that's being rejected. This leads
> to confusion.
>
> Short of reworking my rules
Hi All,
I'm using the SPF policy daemon. Works great (or appears to, anyway),
save one thing: The rejects claim "Recipient address rejected," when,
in reality, it's the sender's address that's being rejected. This leads
to confusion.
Short of reworking my rules so I can place the SPF check unde
I am not able to post in the group. please help .. neither am i
receiving mails from the group .
--
Regards
Agnello D'souza
16 matches
Mail list logo
