On 5/30/2013 11:43 PM, James Zee wrote:
I was hoping someone could take a quick glance at my
smtpd_*_restrictions configurations. While I've read and (re-)read the
SMTPD_ACCESS_README file a few times over I would be greatly
appreciative if someone could sanity check my work.
Reviewing
Stan,
On 05/31/2013 08:49 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 5/30/2013 11:43 PM, James Zee wrote:
I was hoping someone could take a quick glance at my
smtpd_*_restrictions configurations. While I've read and (re-)read the
SMTPD_ACCESS_README file a few times over I would be greatly
appreciative if
On 5/31/2013 4:09 AM, Mikael Bak wrote:
Stan,
On 05/31/2013 08:49 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 5/30/2013 11:43 PM, James Zee wrote:
I was hoping someone could take a quick glance at my
smtpd_*_restrictions configurations. While I've read and (re-)read the
SMTPD_ACCESS_README file a few
On 2013-05-31 6:04 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
It is a waste of everyone's time including the poster and readers to
go spell check main.cf files on the mailing list. Wietse Venema
12/09/2010
Stan, I certainly don't read that as saying people cannot ask for a
sanity check
On 2013-05-22 1:45 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount qua...@zimbra.com wrote:
I would read the CHANGES file shipped with OpenSSL. They didn't
document the changes between 1.0.1d and 1.0.1e, but you can see the
changes between 1.0.1c and 1.0.1d.
I read them, but nothing jumped out at me (didn't see
LuKreme:
Don't enable the after 220 tests, or wait until whitelisting
is stable. Given that Google has many servers, manual whitelisting
is not a long-term solution.
After looking at my log files I?ve disabled all the ?after 220?
test for now. Looking forward to the stable whitelisting
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:43:51AM -0400, James Zee wrote:
I was hoping someone could take a quick glance at my
smtpd_*_restrictions configurations. While I've read and (re-)read the
SMTPD_ACCESS_README file a few times over I would be greatly
appreciative if someone could sanity check my
On 30/5/2013 11:17 πμ, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I usually disable ESMTP when encountering those problems:
transport_maps: cospico.gr noesmtp: noesmtp being defined in master.cf
as: noesmtp unix - - - - - smtp -o smtp_never_send_ehlo=yes -o
smtp_always_send_ehlo=no
Thank you Wietse and Ralf
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 03:49:44PM +0300, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
On 30/5/2013 11:17 ??, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I usually disable ESMTP when encountering those problems:
transport_maps: cospico.gr noesmtp: noesmtp being defined in
master.cf as: noesmtp unix - - - - - smtp -o
Stan Hoeppner:
What I stated above is Wietse's policy:
It is a waste of everyone's time including the poster and readers
to go spell check main.cf files on the mailing list.
To place the quote in context:
Stan:
This is exactly why I wanted to see your main.cf. It's a total
mess. I'll
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:09 AM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:43:51AM -0400, James Zee wrote:
I was hoping someone could take a quick glance at my
smtpd_*_restrictions configurations. While I've read and (re-)read the
SMTPD_ACCESS_README file a few times over I
On 30 May 2013 22:44, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Simon B:
That's what I thought. I did your suggestion and postfix did not
complain. Not doing postfix stop/start or even /etc/init.d/postfix
start/stop..
So, now I'm stumped. There are other master.cf on the system, but I'm
This week I upgraded postfix from a RHEL 3 box to a new install with
CentOS 6.2 and Postfix 2.6.6 and Dovecot 2.0.9
Most things are working (logging in, sending mail, etc).
But I'm having some issues receiving mail. But not all accounts are
having this trouble.
My setup is that I have /home
On 5/31/2013 12:51 PM, Dean Guenther wrote:
I suspect I'm just missing something when converting from the earlier
postfix to the newer postfix (and dovecot). Why am I getting these tmp
and new files under /home/user/mail?
This is a sign you are saving in maildir format.
Its probably not
I seem to be able to setup a desktop email client and send email to my
server, from any external network, and the email will be accepted for
delivery as long as a) the sender uses any from address (local part)
@my.real-domain.com, and b) the recipient has a mailbox @my.real-domain.com.
The only
Thanks Brian!!! Commenting out home_mailbox took care of the problem. I
appreciate the help -- Dean
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 13:21 -0400, Brian Evans wrote:
On 5/31/2013 12:51 PM, Dean Guenther wrote:
I suspect I'm just missing something when converting from the earlier
postfix to the newer
On 5/31/2013 12:22 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
I seem to be able to setup a desktop email client and send email to my
server, from any external network, and the email will be accepted for
delivery as long as a) the sender uses any from address (local part)
@my.real-domain.com, and b) the recipient
Simon B:
On 30 May 2013 22:44, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Simon B:
That's what I thought. I did your suggestion and postfix did not
complain. Not doing postfix stop/start or even /etc/init.d/postfix
start/stop..
So, now I'm stumped. There are other master.cf on the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:46:50PM +0200, Simon B wrote:
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd -v
-o receive_override_options=
cleanup unix n - - - 0 cleanup -v
#Stop Postfix from cleaning emails before sending to amavis
On 5/31/2013 2:39 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/31/2013 12:22 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
I seem to be able to setup a desktop email client and send email to my
server, from any external network, and the email will be accepted for
delivery as long as a) the sender uses any from address (local part)
On 31 May 2013 21:07, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:46:50PM +0200, Simon B wrote:
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd -v
-o receive_override_options=
cleanup unix n - - - 0 cleanup
On 5/31/2013 2:06 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
Okay. I understand. The implication here is that it doesn't matter
whether the user-agent connects directly to my server via SMTP to
delivery mail to my users, or he connects through his ISP's SMTP server
to do the same. Correct?
Correct. By default,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 03:06:38PM -0400, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 5/31/2013 2:39 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/31/2013 12:22 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
Postfix postfinger output for this server (prior to closing
this hole):
http://pastebin.com/QGE3cah5
... mail_version = 2.7.0
This
On 5/31/2013 3:52 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/31/2013 2:06 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
Okay. I understand. The implication here is that it doesn't matter
whether the user-agent connects directly to my server via SMTP to
delivery mail to my users, or he connects through his ISP's SMTP server
to
On 5/31/2013 4:11 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 03:06:38PM -0400, Ben Johnson wrote:
On 5/31/2013 2:39 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/31/2013 12:22 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
Postfix postfinger output for this server (prior to closing
this hole):
http://pastebin.com/QGE3cah5
...
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 09:23:40PM +0200, Simon B wrote:
Last entry wins.
Brilliant, thanks Victor Wietse. So, comment the virtual_alias_maps in
pre-clean-up until I get amavis back up and running..?
Be a bit more confident, you don't need to ask.
--
Viktor.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:15:05AM -0400, James Zee wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:09 AM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:43:51AM -0400, James Zee wrote:
snip
Also, you really should separate submission from your inbound
port 25. I only allow relaying on the
Background: Internal Mail Relay server. Connections from the internet are
not possible. The vast majority of messages are going to Google Apps.
Problem one: How to properly 'blacklist' certain To: addresses. I am
currently using:
header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks
where
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
is time to change the release numbering scheme.
We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.
or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
they changed the numbering scheme with Solaris 7
Jason Price:
*May 30 12:38:23 rmail3b01 postfix/error[6485]: DD01F7B0:
to=acre...@aa.com, relay=none, delay=403, delays=0.01/403/0/0,
dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: conversation
However, while watching tcpdump output very carefully, I can find no
evidence
Hi.
I think the best is major.minor.patch, with major being really ground
breaking changes, or those that add major incompatibilities... e.g.
getting rid of all kind of legacy config option names or such...
Minor being used for all other feature releases (which do not add major
incompatibilities
On 5/31/2013 3:19 PM, Ben Johnson wrote:
Also, you're right; I had confused Postfix version 2.10 with 2.1. I now
realize that the directive smtpd_relay_restrictions is not yet
available with respect to my version of Postfix.
Thanks again,
-Ben
probably combined with the (perhaps
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:56:11PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe
it is time to change the release numbering scheme.
The 2.10=2.1 confusion is something we commonly see in IRC. On the
plus side, it shows that the person was reading
I've reviewed the pcap file, looking for ip.addr == 173.194.65.27 for all
times between 12:31:39 (when postfix received the message), and 12:48:22
(when it was successfully delivered), and there are no frames that mention
'acrespo' at all (except the initial reception, and the final delivery).
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 4:43 PM -0500 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
My wish is that Postfix 3.0, should it ever happen, would be a
rewrite which sacrifices backward compatibility and the easy
upgradability. Many things were learned over the course of Postfix
1.x/2.x development, and a
On 5/31/2013 3:56 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
is time to change the release numbering scheme.
We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.
or we could do it like Sun. After releasing Solaris 2.0 .. 2.6,
On 5/31/2013 4:54 PM, Jason Price wrote:
I've reviewed the pcap file, looking for ip.addr == 173.194.65.27
for all times between 12:31:39 (when postfix received the message),
and 12:48:22 (when it was successfully delivered), and there are no
frames that mention 'acrespo' at all (except the
On 31 May 2013, at 11:27 , Dean Guenther dean.guent...@wsu.edu wrote:
Thanks Brian!!! Commenting out home_mailbox took care of the problem. I
appreciate the help -- Dean
Suggest, in the strongest possible terms, that you do not use mbox format.
Maildir is far more robust and is also much more
On 31 May 2013, at 14:56 , Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
is time to change the release numbering scheme.
The amount of confusion doesn't seem worth changing to me. I know that some
people will see 2.1.1 and think
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:43 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
My wish is that Postfix 3.0, should it ever happen, would be a
rewrite which sacrifices backward compatibility and the easy
upgradability. Many things were learned over the course of Postfix
1.x/2.x development, and a Postfix 3.0 (in my
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:43 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
My wish is that Postfix 3.0, should it ever happen, would be a
rewrite which sacrifices backward compatibility and the easy
upgradability. Many things were learned over the course of Postfix
1.x/2.x development, and a Postfix 3.0 (in my
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:33 PM, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
Suggest, in the strongest possible terms, that you do not use mbox format.
Maildir is far more robust and is also much more efficient, requiring far
fewer resources on your machine.
From one Cougar (BYU) to another (WSU), may
Microsoft is actually publicly asking for feedback on its Exchange
Server and Outlook Standards. This might be a good time to tell them
specific problems you have with those two products and what changes are
needed to make them more compatible with FOSS products. This pertains
to Exchange Server
On May 31, 2013, at 5:48 PM, LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
I know that some people will see 2.1.1 and think that's exactly the same
thing as 2.10.1,
But why should they? As a number, 2.1 and 2.10 are the same thing (except for
implied precision). And I can see possible confusion there.
On Friday, May 31, 2013 04:56:11 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
is time to change the release numbering scheme.
We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.
or we could do it like Sun. After releasing
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
is time to change the release numbering scheme.
We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.
or we could do it like Sun.
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 17:33 -0700, Bryan Irvine wrote:
I've always found the OpenBSD method the easiest. after 2.9 comes 3.0 then
3.13.9 then 4.0.
Guess that depends on how one interprets version numbers
Is it a plain number? Then the model as also used by OpenBSD makes sense
as 3.1 ==
On 06/01/2013 08:56 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
is time to change the release numbering scheme.
I would take the confusion with a grain of salt, and I think that
changing the numbering scheme will generate even more confusion.
On 5/31/2013 at 4:56 PM wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
|After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1,
=
In 20/20 hindsight, perhaps Postfix 2.1 should have been Postfix 2.01,
allowing 100 minor versions before the major version was forced to
change.
I have a similar
On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it is time to
change the release numbering scheme.
If they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be running a mail server. There is
nothing wrong with the
On 5/31/2013 at 10:23 PM Jim Wright wrote:
|On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
|
| After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
is
|time to change the release numbering scheme.
|
|If they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be running
On Friday, May 31, 2013, Noel Jones wrote:
Please don't top-post.
When postfix logs delivery temporarily suspended, it means no
attempt was made to deliver this message. The destination has been
marked as down due to multiple prior failures.
-- Noel Jones
Thank you. That explains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2013 08:30 PM, Mike. wrote:
On 5/31/2013 at 10:23 PM Jim Wright wrote:
|On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote: | | After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix
2.1, maybe it is |time to
53 matches
Mail list logo
