avoiding overload on port 587

I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on submission port 587. Our mailserver is sometimes overloaded on port 25, so we want to use postscreen. But I don't understand, how Postfix works when it's stressed on port 587, when spammers connect to that opened port and want send t

Re: Using error(8) mailer with sender_dependent_relayhost_maps

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:57:37 -0600 Noel Jones wrote: > On 11/29/2012 11:35 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:18:14PM +1100, Adi Pircalabu wrote: [...] > >> http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#client_sasl_sender > >> http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html > >> Now I hav

Re: Using error(8) mailer with sender_dependent_relayhost_maps

On 11/29/2012 11:35 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:18:14PM +1100, Adi Pircalabu wrote: > >> With Postfix 2.8.4 I want to selectively disable relaying for certain >> SMTP-authenticated users, but unfortunately in this case I don't have >> access to the authentication databa

Re: Using error(8) mailer with sender_dependent_relayhost_maps

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:18:14PM +1100, Adi Pircalabu wrote: > With Postfix 2.8.4 I want to selectively disable relaying for certain > SMTP-authenticated users, but unfortunately in this case I don't have > access to the authentication database which is managed by a 3rd party > auxprop_plugin. T

Using error(8) mailer with sender_dependent_relayhost_maps

With Postfix 2.8.4 I want to selectively disable relaying for certain SMTP-authenticated users, but unfortunately in this case I don't have access to the authentication database which is managed by a 3rd party auxprop_plugin. The same database is used for both SMTP and IMAP/POP3 authentication and

Re: [postfix-users] OOT: Test

Syukurlah email yang saya tulis dg bb ini bisa diteruskan ke milis. Soalnya kalo di milis tanya-jawab@linux selalu gagal. FYI, email yg dikirim via bb ini mempunyai header "Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64". Jika email ini sampai ke tujuan sourcenya itu hasil encoding base64 format. --Or

Re: [postfix-users] OOT: Test

sip On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Arief Yudhawarman wrote: > > OOT:Test. > > --- > > Sent from my BlackBerry® 9780 aka onyx 2. -- http://mafatahna.web.id -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: postfix-users+unsubscr...@id.postfix.org For additional commands, e-mail: postfix-users+h...@id.postfix.org

[postfix-users] OOT: Test

OOT:Test. --- Sent from my BlackBerry® 9780 aka onyx 2.N‹§²æìr¸›y隊Zh²×âÆë®Ï®žË›±Êâmè�¦‹-~,h®
h­§]ŠØ¨�©\¢iš�Û™¨¥¦‹-~,n±êìú¥¦'i¢Ë_‹+

Re: Multiple IP addresses binding

WebprodsPT: > Hello, > > I am the administrator of a Postfix setup with multiple domains, > multiple IP addresses and SSL configured and up and running. Everything > was configured by myself and I have no restrictions on the mail server > machine so basically I can do whatever you suggest. > >

Multiple IP addresses binding

Hello, I am the administrator of a Postfix setup with multiple domains, multiple IP addresses and SSL configured and up and running. Everything was configured by myself and I have no restrictions on the mail server machine so basically I can do whatever you suggest. Today I received a new re

Re: make error - "ATTENTION: Unknown system type: FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE"

Ed Flecko: > I'm new to Postfix (I'll admit) and I'm trying to be a diligent user, > so I've looked at the INSTALL file and some of the README files, but I > don't see anything that looks like a possible solution to my problem. > > Do I need to pass Postfix a parameter telling it what type of OS I

make error - "ATTENTION: Unknown system type: FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE"

I'm new to Postfix (I'll admit) and I'm trying to be a diligent user, so I've looked at the INSTALL file and some of the README files, but I don't see anything that looks like a possible solution to my problem. Do I need to pass Postfix a parameter telling it what type of OS I have before it will

Re: Support for MDB in postfix 2.10?

--On Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:55 PM -0500 Jerry wrote: Thanks, sounds reasonable. I wasn't aware of it myself. I just found this documentation though. It is quite interesting. http://www.openldap.org/pub/hyc/mdm-paper.pdf You may want to read over then. ;)

Re: Support for MDB in postfix 2.10?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:32:54 -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount articulated: > --On Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:10 PM -0500 Wietse Venema > wrote: > > > Quanah Gibson-Mount: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Will the support for the new MDB database from the OpenLDAP > >> foundation be added to the Postfix 2.10 rel

Re: Relaying based on recipient without maintaining two lists

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: In my experience, public facing email domains for organizations with complex email requirements are almost almost best implemented as virtual alias domains. This adds a layer of indirection between the outside view of an email domain (everyone is just

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:02:45PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Bastian Blank: > > Much worse, it is a PGPv3 RSA key. Such keys are not longer safe for use > You're mistaken. It's from PGP5. Maybe it was generated with PGP 5. This piece of software supports both formats. The easiest to see clue i

Re: Support for MDB in postfix 2.10?

--On Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:10 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wrote: Quanah Gibson-Mount: Hi, Will the support for the new MDB database from the OpenLDAP foundation be added to the Postfix 2.10 release? I'm currently working on removing all vestiges of BDB from the various pieces of softwa

Re: CSI Cloudmark configuration

Le 22/11/2012 13:22, Nico Angenon a écrit : > Helllo, > > My goal is not to send mass mail, i'm looking for a solution because my > server serves about 1500 Users sending "normal" mails 10 hours a day, how many users "sending" is irrelevant. what counts is how many messages get out of your system

Re: Support for MDB in postfix 2.10?

Quanah Gibson-Mount: > Hi, > > Will the support for the new MDB database from the OpenLDAP foundation be > added to the Postfix 2.10 release? I'm currently working on removing all > vestiges of BDB from the various pieces of software we use, and Postfix is > one of pieces of software we have t

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

Bastian Blank: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:26:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > It's an RSA key. > > Type Bits KeyID CreatedExpiresAlgorithm Use > > sec+ 2048 0xC12BCD99 2005-02-28 -- RSA Sign & Encrypt > > uid Wietse Venema > > Much worse, it is a PGP

Support for MDB in postfix 2.10?

Hi, Will the support for the new MDB database from the OpenLDAP foundation be added to the Postfix 2.10 release? I'm currently working on removing all vestiges of BDB from the various pieces of software we use, and Postfix is one of pieces of software we have that links to BDB. I see patches

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

Solved! It WAS a bad download. I downloaded both the tarball and the .sig file and got the following: gpg: Signature made Wed Aug 1 15:14:44 2012 PDT using RSA key ID C12BCD99 gpg: Good signature from "Wietse Venema " gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg:

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:26:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > It's an RSA key. > Type Bits KeyID CreatedExpiresAlgorithm Use > sec+ 2048 0xC12BCD99 2005-02-28 -- RSA Sign & Encrypt > uid Wietse Venema Much worse, it is a PGPv3 RSA key. Such keys are not

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

Will, I *think* I have the key added to my keyring - isn't that what the: gpg --import wietse.pgp does??? Ed

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:14:40AM -0800, Ed Flecko wrote: > gpg --verify postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz.sig postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz > gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. There is nothing to be verified in the specified file. > gpg: the signature could not be verified. > Please remember that the signature file

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:26:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Ed Flecko: > > gpg --verify postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz.sig postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz > > gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. > > It's an RSA key. On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:35:38AM -0800, Ed Flecko wrote: > > So, I guess, gnupg won't verify an

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

Ed Flecko: > O.K., thank you. > > So, I guess, gnupg won't verify an RSA key? > > Perhaps FreeBSD needs a different program other than gnupg or pgp to > verify this type of signature? How do most people verify the package > signature? Below is my result on FreeBSD 8. Wietse % gpg --ver

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

O.K., thank you. So, I guess, gnupg won't verify an RSA key? Perhaps FreeBSD needs a different program other than gnupg or pgp to verify this type of signature? How do most people verify the package signature? Ed

Re: Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

Ed Flecko: > gpg --verify postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz.sig postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz > gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. It's an RSA key. Type Bits KeyID CreatedExpiresAlgorithm Use sec+ 2048 0xC12BCD99 2005-02-28 -- RSA Sign & Encrypt uid Wietse Venema Wiets

Trouble verifying Postfix tarball signature

I'm running FreeBSD 9.0 and I've installed both pgp and gnupg. I've downloaded postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz, postfix-2.9.4.tar.gz.sig, wietse.pgp and I'm trying to verify the tarball signature. I've taken the following steps (which I found at - http://www.itmission.org/Main/How-to-verify-signature-of-dow

Re: "mail forwarding loop" from certain spam only

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 04:02:57PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote: > On 11/28/2012 1:17 PM, Will Yardley wrote: > > I'm having a problem where messages are accepted but then seem to > > generate a mail forwarding loop. It seems to happen a lot with mail > > from a particular spammer. > > There was a dis

Re: Relaying based on recipient without maintaining two lists

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Geoff Shang wrote: > Right now, the company itself is using a particular domain for its > Email, lets call it example.com. But, in a classic case of not > thinking far enough ahead, it's been decided that the example.com > domain will now be used for our

Relaying based on recipient without maintaining two lists

Hi, Apologies for jumping on a list and posting without reading some first. This issue has been driving me mad for several days so I thought I'd jump on here and ask. I'm helping to set up a customer mail system for my work. I'm specifically working on the MX machine. Right now, the compa

Re: Split domain Issue with local users

On Nov 29, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Sergi Seira wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > I'm trying to set up a split domain (splitdomain.tld) environment due to a > migration of mailboxes from one server to another. > > Server Origin has 2 mailboxes (a...@splitdomain

Re: Bad address syntax

* Ralf Hildebrandt : > * Ralf Hildebrandt : > > * Muzaffer Tolga Özses : > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm getting the log entry in my to=, relay=none, > > > delay=0, delays=0/0/0/0, dsn=5.1.3, status=bounced (bad address > > > syntax). Googling says I should add allow_min_users = yes, which I > > > would

Split domain Issue with local users

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I'm trying to set up a split domain (splitdomain.tld) environment due to a migration of mailboxes from one server to another. Server Origin has 2 mailboxes (a...@splitdomain.tld and b...@splitdomain.tld). Server Destination has also 2 mailbo

Re: send specified email to a public folder.

On 11/29/2012 6:18 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote: > i created a public namespace in dovecot on root (/public) there are > two folders inside "public". /public/HR and /public/News > > i want, when only HR send email to hr.annou...@mydomain.com it will > deliver to the "/public/HR" > when other use

Re: send specified email to a public folder.

Muhammad Yousuf Khan: > i created a public namespace in dovecot on root (/public) there are > two folders inside "public". /public/HR and /public/News This is the POSTFIX, not DOVECOT, mailing list. Wietse

Re: send specified email to a public folder.

Am 29.11.2012 13:18, schrieb Muhammad Yousuf Khan: > i created a public namespace in dovecot on root (/public) there are > two folders inside "public". /public/HR and /public/News > > i want, when only HR send email to hr.annou...@mydomain.com it will > deliver to the "/public/HR" > when other u

send specified email to a public folder.

i created a public namespace in dovecot on root (/public) there are two folders inside "public". /public/HR and /public/News i want, when only HR send email to hr.annou...@mydomain.com it will deliver to the "/public/HR" when other users try to send email to hr.annou...@mydomain.com their access m

Re: Bad address syntax

* Ralf Hildebrandt : > * Muzaffer Tolga Özses : > > Hi, > > > > I'm getting the log entry in my to=, relay=none, > > delay=0, delays=0/0/0/0, dsn=5.1.3, status=bounced (bad address > > syntax). Googling says I should add allow_min_users = yes, which I > > would like to confirm. > > root@/etc/mail

Re: Bad address syntax

* Muzaffer Tolga Özses : > Hi, > > I'm getting the log entry in my to=, relay=none, > delay=0, delays=0/0/0/0, dsn=5.1.3, status=bounced (bad address > syntax). Googling says I should add allow_min_users = yes, which I > would like to confirm. root@/etc/mailname is wrong syntax. Period. Stop send

Re: DNS issue

On 29 Nov 2012, at 10:49, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > I'm seeing a DNS problem I cannot fathom: > > # host 65.171.152.29 Well, there's part of your problem right there. Never, ever use host or nslookup to query the DNS. Use dig. [Or drill if you're into debugging DNSSEC.] Accept no substitutes.

Bad address syntax

Hi, I'm getting the log entry in my to=, relay=none, delay=0, delays=0/0/0/0, dsn=5.1.3, status=bounced (bad address syntax). Googling says I should add allow_min_users = yes, which I would like to confirm. My postconf -n is alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases

DNS issue

I'm seeing a DNS problem I cannot fathom: # host 65.171.152.29 Host 29.152.171.65.in-addr.arpa not found: 2(SERVFAIL) Hm. So who's authoritative? # host -t ns 171.65.in-addr.arpa 171.65.in-addr.arpa name server ns1-auth.sprintlink.net. 171.65.in-addr.arpa name server ns3-auth.sprintlink.net. 171

Re: Lamentation and query

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:35:46 +0100 Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > I am working on an updated version as time permits. Thank you, Patrick. Looking forward to the newer version when it's out there. -Dennis

Re: Lamentation and query

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:10:11 + Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > The basic concepts (what you need to understand) have not changed > much, in that sense the old books are fine. The specific facts you > need to know to tweak Postfix to do non-routine tasks may have > changed a bit, but the documentatio

Re: Lamentation and query

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 12:50:48 -0700 Glenn English wrote: > Have you considered printing (parts of) the website? I hadn't, but being a broke college student, it may cost a bit. I could probably pull off printing it on campus though -Dennis

Re: Lamentation and query

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:08:26 -0600 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Dennis, how many computer books, or books in general, do you own? Do > you have any on display? Or are they all simply hoarded away in boxes > in the attic or basement? Two shelves of books I could use regularly on things various such a

Re: "mail forwarding loop" from certain spam only

* Noel Jones : > On 11/28/2012 1:17 PM, Will Yardley wrote: > > [Apologies in advance for the less than complete information below; > > hoping someone may have an idea of what's happening anyway] > > > > I'm having a problem where messages are accepted but then seem to > > generate a mail forwardi