Re: postfix SMTP AUTH

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 03:51:13PM -0400, William Holt wrote: > hi, new to the forum. I'm running arch and have postfix/cyrus. Generally I recommend Dovecot for SASL and IMAP. > I can telnet to the smtp daemon, smtp is running and acceptd > connection: > -telnet #.#.#.# 25-- > [remot

Re: postfix SMTP AUTH

William, * William Holt : > hi, new to the forum. I'm running arch and have postfix/cyrus. > I can telnet to the smtp daemon, smtp is running and acceptd connection: please post output from saslfinger as requested by . It will make debugging your pro

reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname (was: The ultimate email server)

Off-topic portions removed. Ditto Stan's comment: this thread needs to come to an end. I already responded to the off-topic assertions back in September, suggesting that it move to SDLU. I saw some silliness in this thread, but I am refusing to be dragged into it.[1] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 02:

Re: The ultimate email server

--On October 21, 2012 9:53:49 AM + Mike's unattended mail wrote: On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek wrote: But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else comply with my concept of what is "right". Then this means you are not using a DNSBL as a block list - which inde

Re: The ultimate email server

Am 21.10.2012 16:21, schrieb Mike's unattended mail: >>> The RFC certainly does not insist that senders buy a domain name. >> >> Who said anything about buying a domain name? Any server connected to >> the Internet can have a host name, > > If you use the FQDN format for the EHLO, it cannot be

Re: The ultimate email server

On 21/10/12 16:29, Mark Goodge wrote: > On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote: >> On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge wrote: >> >>> And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of >>> incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator. >> >> How do you think a competent s

Re: postfix-user list features undocumented

On 2012-10-21, Reindl Harald wrote: > > so write a SIMPLE sieve-rule to discard the messages from the list > on your server if you only use gmane - what exactly is your problem? That's a hack. It's reasonable, but not as favorable as not having the traffic in the first place. Hence the original

Re: The ultimate email server

On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote: On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge wrote: And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator. How do you think a competent sys admin sets the EHLO under the circumstances of not

Re: The ultimate email server

On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge wrote: > > No, it isn't right to deliver spam. Spam should be rejected, because > if it isn't then the sending server has no incentive to clean up its > act. How does a rejection create incentive for a spam-sending server to clean up? If this is a botnet node w/ unwitt

Re: The ultimate email server

On 20/10/2012 18:27, Mike's unattended mail wrote: On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman wrote: DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about email, There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who are "serious" but either incompetent or on a cost-saving agenda, and t

Stop The Troll

Obviously, some people don't notice the troll alert signs. Ignore this person.

Re: The ultimate email server

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:24 + (UTC) Mike's unattended mail articulated: > Your whitehouse remark is an illogical "appeal to authority". You're > actually the only one to have a post that's unworthy of response. And yet you did ... -- Jerry ✌ postfix-u...@seibercom.net

Re: postfix-user list features undocumented

Am 21.10.2012 13:28, schrieb Mike's unattended mail: > On 2012-10-20, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> With mailman one can deactivate receiving mails but still be a member >>> (during vacation for example) >> >> a proper mailserver will not respond to messages wtih a >> "Precedence: bulk" header and no

Re: The ultimate email server

Am 21.10.2012 13:22, schrieb Mike's unattended mail: > The logical debate to this point have not favored proponents of the > two crude and sloppy techniques that I mentioned. But, I'm open for > good rationale; both for my benefit and the OPs. what is so difficult to undestand? if you are lack

mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf needs the boot

He's made 6 posts since joining less than 24 hours ago. All have been 100% off topic, argumentative and/or preachy. It is clear he didn't join this list to receive help with Postfix, or to help others with Postfix. He should take the opportunity to remove himself before Wietse performs this task

Re: postfix-user list features undocumented

On 2012-10-20, Reindl Harald wrote: >> With mailman one can deactivate receiving mails but still be a member >> (during vacation for example) > > a proper mailserver will not respond to messages wtih a > "Precedence: bulk" header and not respond more than once > each day to the same sender Ralf d

Re: The ultimate email server

On 2012-10-21, Jim Reid wrote: > > Please take your religious debate elsewhere as it's no longer > relevant to this list. Thanks. If you perceive RFC compliance as a religious matter, please feel free to disregard this thread. Thanks. To be clear, the hot-headed remarks that endorse using IP ad

Re: The ultimate email server

On 21 Oct 2012, at 11:05, Mike's unattended mail wrote: > You're the first to post an ad hominem, without so much as even > bundling it with a single logical argument. Which should have been the point where this thread immediately halted... Please take your religious debate elsewhere as it's n

Re: The ultimate email server

On 2012-10-20, peter evans wrote: > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 01:14:19PM +, Mike's unattended mail wrote: >> From: Mike's unattended mail > > I think that about says how much value your opinions have. > >> * dnsbl > > If it is good enough for the whitehouse, it is probably good >

Re: The ultimate email server

On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek wrote: > > But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else > comply with my concept of what is "right". Then this means you are not using a DNSBL as a block list - which indeed promotes a live and let live approach. It is precisely those who ru