We wanted to test TLS and we've found this one: http://www.checktls.com/
Thanks to the list for all the help.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 6/12/2013 10:53 AM, polloxx wrote:
> > Thanks Wietse.
> > Can we test this setup?
> >
>
> If you're asking how to test your TLS,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:53:17PM -0700, fletch wrote:
> What do you mean by: "...they can not come close to postfix as far as email
> standards go"? My understanding is that powermta fully complies with the
> various RFCs.
>
> Also, I'm sure there are far more spammers using free software like
What do you mean by: "...they can not come close to postfix as far as email
standards go"? My understanding is that powermta fully complies with the
various RFCs.
Also, I'm sure there are far more spammers using free software like postfix
rather than paying for a commercial product.
On Wed, Jun
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> fletch:
> > The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to
say
> > the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
> > range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet,
pe
I know powermta as well as postfix and I think I can add to some of the
comments on here, powermta is not cheap by any means and of course postfix
is free, however pmta might have some settings out of the box that are
optimized for bulk but they can not come close to postfix as far as email
standar
On 6/12/2013 4:40 PM, fletch wrote:
> Peer,
>
> There's no way that's a production figure. You may have queued that many,
> but I seriously doubt you got anything close to 3-4 million/hour when
> postfix was actually conducting delivery with the remote gateways...
>
This point is somewhat moo
Peer,
There's no way that's a production figure. You may have queued that many,
but I seriously doubt you got anything close to 3-4 million/hour when
postfix was actually conducting delivery with the remote gateways...
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Peer Heinlein [via Postfix] <
ml-node+s107
Am 12.06.2013 21:17, schrieb fletch:
> The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
> the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
> range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
> here are claiming 10 million/h
On 06/12/2013 12:17 PM, fletch wrote:
The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
here are claiming 10 million/hour?
fletch:
> The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
> the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
> range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
> here are claiming 10 million/hour? I guess that would be p
Am 12.06.2013 21:17, schrieb fletch:
> here are claiming 10 million/hour? I guess that would be possible if a
> sender were to run, say, 40 postfix instances which would be a complete
> management nightmare of course.
You already lost.
I did this even 5-6 years ago with 3-4 millionen mails / ho
The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
here are claiming 10 million/hour? I guess that would be possible if a
sen
On 6/12/2013 10:53 AM, polloxx wrote:
> Thanks Wietse.
> Can we test this setup?
>
If you're asking how to test your TLS, use the openssl s_client.
openssl s_client -connect se.rv.er.ip:port -starttls smtp
If it's working, you'll get several screens full of connection info
and certificate exch
On 2013-06-12 Wietse Venema wrote:
> If you mean that "set nowrap" in vim did not put the line breaks
> back, then that is to be expected.
>
> If you mean that "set nowrap" in vim removes line breaks, then that
> is a question for vim users/faqs/maintainers.
FTR: "set wrap" or "set nowrap" don't
Carlos E. R.:
> Apararently, my previous reply has been lost. I resend.
>
> On 2013-06-12 14:40, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Carlos E. R.:
>
> >
> > Does the machine have a network interface with IP address 127.0.0.2?
>
> Dunno. I guess not, because it is not listed in ifconfig output.
Then, 127.
polloxx:
> Thanks to all of you.
> Now it works, although "set nowrap" in vim did not solve the issue. I had
> to add the parameters using "postconf -e".
> Is this normal?
Wietse:
> "set nowrap" has no effect after the text is already wrapped.
polloxx:
> Thanks Wietse.
> Can we test this setup?
Thanks Wietse.
Can we test this setup?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> polloxx:
> > Thanks to all of you.
> > Now it works, although "set nowrap" in vim did not solve the issue. I had
> > to add the parameters using "postconf -e".
> > Is this normal?
>
> "set nowrap" has
polloxx:
> Thanks to all of you.
> Now it works, although "set nowrap" in vim did not solve the issue. I had
> to add the parameters using "postconf -e".
> Is this normal?
"set nowrap" has no effect after the text is already wrapped.
Wietse
Apararently, my previous reply has been lost. I resend.
On 2013-06-12 14:40, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Carlos E. R.:
>
> Does the machine have a network interface with IP address 127.0.0.2?
Dunno. I guess not, because it is not listed in ifconfig output.
However, they tell me that any address in
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:02:40PM +0200, Peter Bauer wrote:
> I got a connection from someone with a client certification:
>
> Received: from foo.bar (foo.bar [10.0.0.1])
> (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
> (Client CN "mail.foo.bar", Issuer "StartCo
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:23:38PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 03:02 PM, Peter Bauer wrote:
> >
> >How can I check the certificate of the incoming email? By
> >fingerprint would be nice. And I would like to refuse it if check
> >fails.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#s
Thanks to all of you.
Now it works, although "set nowrap" in vim did not solve the issue. I had
to add the parameters using "postconf -e".
Is this normal?
Now I see "250-STARTTLS" when I telnet to the server on port 25.
Is there another way to test if the setup works?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:4
> If he can just use a (sender-dependent) transport to send his
> newsletter to, that would take care of the blockage, wouldn't it ?
Yes, provided that he does not saturate the active queue. There
is, however, no need to cripple this transport with single-recipient
deliveries. If one delivery t
On 06/12/2013 03:02 PM, Peter Bauer wrote:
I got a connection from someone with a client certification:
Received: from foo.bar (foo.bar [10.0.0.1])
(using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "mail.foo.bar", Issuer "StartCom Class 1 Primary Interme
On 06/08/2013 08:17 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Jeroen Geilman:
On 06/04/2013 02:20 PM, Erwan David wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:44:46PM CEST, Tom Hendrikx said:
On 06/04/2013 01:22 PM, Antonio Guti?rrez Mayoral wrote:
Hi Wietse,
Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered i
I got a connection from someone with a client certification:
Received: from foo.bar (foo.bar [10.0.0.1])
(using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "mail.foo.bar", Issuer "StartCom Class 1 Primary
Intermediate Server CA" (not verified))
by my
polloxx:
> local_header_rewrite_clients = static:all smtp_tls_CAfile =
> /etc/postfix/cacert.pemsmtp_tls_session_cache_database =
> btree:/mailout/var/spool/postfix/smtp_tls_session_cache
> smtp_tls_security_level = maysmtp_use_tls = yessmtpd_tls_CAfile
> =
> /etc/postfix/cacert.pem
Carlos E. R.:
> Situation:
>
> When configuring the network in YaST, ifup method (openSUSE Linux), it
> may create an entry like this in /etc/hosts (the very last line):
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost
> 192.168.1.2some_host.some_domain some_host
> 127.0.0.2 some_host.some_domain some_host
I use vim to edit the Postfix config. What should I use?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:34:38PM +0200, polloxx wrote:
>
> > no luck yet.
> >
> > local_header_rewrite_clients = static:all smtp_tls_CAfile =
> > /
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
new here.
Situation:
When configuring the network in YaST, ifup method (openSUSE Linux), it
may create an entry like this in /etc/hosts (the very last line):
127.0.0.1 localhost
192.168.1.2some_host.some_domain some_host
127.0.0.2
I just configured a tls policy map with a fingerprint check on my server to
communicate securely with the SMTP server of a friend of me.
It works fine. If fingerprint check fails on sending out the mail, it will be
deferred.
However there are three points which I don't understand:
1. Why my serv
31 matches
Mail list logo
