On 12/2/2012 1:20 PM, Alex wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Trying to do too many things at once. You
probably think I'm an idiot by now.
You're welcome. I understand that completely. No, not at all.
Dropping SMTP packets should be done with care. If you FP on an email
to the CEO and
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek ma...@fortech.cz:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek ma...@fortech.cz:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek ma...@fortech.cz:
I don't
On 12/3/2012 2:30 AM, Tomas Macek wrote:
OK, so I spent some time reading config params in doc and topics in
various forums and decided to setup my submission port 587 like this:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_etrn_restrictions=reject
I have line like this
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:24575, ...
in my main.cf
I would like the $smtpd_client_restrictions to override in master.cf,
something like:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o
Am 03.12.2012 14:42, schrieb Tomas Macek:
I have line like this
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:24575, ...
in my main.cf
I would like the $smtpd_client_restrictions to override in master.cf,
something like:
submission inet n - n -
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.12.2012 14:42, schrieb Tomas Macek:
I have line like this
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:24575, ...
in my main.cf
I would like the $smtpd_client_restrictions to override in master.cf, something
like:
On 12/3/2012 7:42 AM, Tomas Macek wrote:
I have line like this
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:24575, ...
in my main.cf
I would like the $smtpd_client_restrictions to override in master.cf,
something like:
submission inet n - n -
Hi,
Using postfix v 2.5.14 on Mac Snow Leopard Server, I've been alarmed at the
amount of spam messages
going to users that no longer exist. The server is at a crawl pace and I'm not
sure if my attempts to control
the situation is making it worse. Could someone look at the main.cf and logs
and
Chabot Deb:
Hi,
Using postfix v 2.5.14 on Mac Snow Leopard Server, I've been alarmed
at the amount of spam messages going to users that no longer exist.
You are a joe-job victim.
http://www.postfix.org/BACSCATTER_README.html
Wietse
On 12/3/2012 7:59 AM, Tomas Macek wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.12.2012 14:42, schrieb Tomas Macek:
I have line like this
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_policy_service
inet:127.0.0.1:24575, ...
in my main.cf
I would like the $smtpd_client_restrictions to
Hi all.
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on the domain. How can I
do that without disabling the for everybody else?
We're using virtual mailboxes on mysql.
Thanks,
Chris
Reindl Harald:
main.cf
whatever_smtpd_client_restrictions = check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:24575
master.cf:
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=$whatever_smtpd_client_restrictions
This is the recommended solution. It is mentioned in the master(5)
manpage, but the text is somewhat obscure. I
On 12/3/2012 12:40 PM, Chris wrote:
Hi all.
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on the domain. How can I
do that without disabling the for everybody else?
We're using virtual mailboxes on mysql.
Thanks,
Chris
Before we start, a reminder that SMTP doesn't have a
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on the domain.
How can I do that without disabling the for everybody else?
If you're only using good, safe lists, you're only rejecting mail
which probably should be rejected. What is
On 12/3/2012 1:18 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/3/2012 12:40 PM, Chris wrote:
Hi all.
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on the domain. How can I
do that without disabling the for everybody else?
We're using virtual mailboxes on mysql.
Thanks,
Chris
Before we start,
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:26:25 -0600 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on the domain.
How can I do that without disabling the for everybody else?
If you're only using good, safe lists,
Le 03/12/2012 09:30, Tomas Macek a écrit :
OK, so I spent some time reading config params in doc and topics in
various forums and decided to setup my submission port 587 like this:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_etrn_restrictions=reject
Le 03/12/2012 10:07, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
You might want to look into these as well:
-o content_filter=
ahem? submission or not, it must go through a malware filter.
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=
-o smtpd_helo_restrictions=
-o smtpd_sender_restrictions=
Le 03/12/2012 14:59, Tomas Macek a écrit :
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.12.2012 14:42, schrieb Tomas Macek:
I have line like this
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_policy_service
inet:127.0.0.1:24575, ...
in my main.cf
I would like the $smtpd_client_restrictions to
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:51:34PM +0100, Chris wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:26:25 -0600 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on
the domain. How can I do that without disabling the for
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Dan Lists:
Nov 30 10:39:59 server postfix/local[50947]: warning: error looking up
passwd info for user: Invalid argument
The getpwnam_r() SYSTEM LIBRARY ROUTINE reports an error,
with errno set to EINVAL (Invalid
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:41:45 -0600 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:51:34PM +0100, Chris wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:26:25 -0600 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain
Dan Lists:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Dan Lists:
Nov 30 10:39:59 server postfix/local[50947]: warning: error looking up
passwd info for user: Invalid argument
The getpwnam_r() SYSTEM
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Dan Lists:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Dan Lists:
Nov 30 10:39:59 server postfix/local[50947]: warning: error looking up
On 12/3/2012 3:41 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
Ah, so there is your answer. No, I'd never use Spamcop for outright
rejection. I don't even believe that Spamcop recommends such use.
Correct. From: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/291.html
We recommend that when using any spam filtering
On 12/3/2012 2:55 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 03/12/2012 10:07, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
You might want to look into these as well:
-o content_filter=
ahem? submission or not, it must go through a malware filter.
Sorry for the oversight. Yes, one would want to include clamav or other
malware
Dan Lists:
Does postfix need to treat the EINVAL as if the user does not exist?
Is there a way to change the behavior of getpwnam*?
EINVAL is not a documented result code.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/getpwnam.html
Postfix is built accoirding to standards,
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Dan Lists:
Does postfix need to treat the EINVAL as if the user does not exist?
Is there a way to change the behavior of getpwnam*?
EINVAL is not a documented result code.
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:34:13PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 12/3/2012 2:55 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 03/12/2012 10:07, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
You might want to look into these as well:
-o content_filter=
ahem? submission or not, it must go through a malware filter.
Sorry for
On 12/3/2012 8:21 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:34:13PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 12/3/2012 2:55 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 03/12/2012 10:07, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
You might want to look into these as well:
-o content_filter=
ahem? submission or not, it must go
2) why would you setup a submission service that doesn't require auth
from MUAs?
It's because they never had to. It is
a
historical problem. Now we have thousands of customers, that never had to
authenticate, so there is no power to force them to do it now.
These days I'm spending the
Am 04.12.2012 07:58, schrieb Tomas Macek:
It's because they never had to. It is a historical problem. Now we have
thousands of customers, that never had to authenticate, so there is no
power to force them to do it now.
autoconfigure outlook and thunderbird etc
for submission auth
look here
Am 04.12.2012 07:58, schrieb Tomas Macek:
2) why would you setup a submission service that doesn't require auth
from MUAs?
It's because they never had to. It is a historical problem. Now we have
thousands of customers, that never had to
authenticate, so there is no power to force them
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.12.2012 07:58, schrieb Tomas Macek:
2) why would you setup a submission service that doesn't require auth
from MUAs?
It's because they never had to. It is a historical problem. Now we have
thousands of customers, that never had to
Am 04.12.2012 08:20, schrieb Tomas Macek:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.12.2012 07:58, schrieb Tomas Macek:
2) why would you setup a submission service that doesn't require auth
from MUAs?
It's because they never had to. It is a historical problem. Now we
have
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 04.12.2012 08:20, schrieb Tomas Macek:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.12.2012 07:58, schrieb Tomas Macek:
2) why would you setup a submission service that doesn't require auth
from MUAs?
It's because they never had to. It
36 matches
Mail list logo
