Re: NOQUEUE: reject: ... 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error

2017-03-19 Thread Lester Montilla
Certainly, I have already corrected them Thanks for all Postfix Family 2017-03-19 11:26 GMT-04:00 Viktor Dukhovni : > > > On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Wietse Venema > wrote: > > > > There are some other typos as well - multiple reject_rbl_client. > > And bare RBL domain names with no reject_rb

Any warnings/suggestions for fail2ban?

2017-03-19 Thread Doug
My next step for my mail system revamp is to add fail2ban. I've read up on how to configure it for Postfix and I think I'm up to speed. I have a few things which I have ideas about configuring for, so if anyone has experiences with these, or warnings against using them, I would appreciate the fe

Re: NOQUEUE: reject: ... 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error

2017-03-19 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > There are some other typos as well - multiple reject_rbl_client. And bare RBL domain names with no reject_rbl_client or similar. -- Viktor.

Re: NOQUEUE: reject: ... 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error

2017-03-19 Thread Wietse Venema
lestraw: > Mar 18 21:03:27 server postfix/smtpd[26211]: warning: unknown smtpd > restriction: "combined.rbl.msrbl.net" You forgot to have 'reject_rbl_client' before 'combined.rbl.msrbl.net' > smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks permit_inet_interfaces > permit_tls_all_clientcerts reject_

Re: policyd-spf and temperrors

2017-03-19 Thread Alex JOST
Am 18.03.2017 um 13:42 schrieb Scott Kitterman: On March 18, 2017 6:13:15 AM EDT, Alex JOST wrote: Am 17.03.2017 um 22:38 schrieb James B. Byrne: The host system runs under CentOS-6. Other than Postfix itself all the packages on this system are either from CentOS or EPEL. Python was last upd

Re: How to setup a no-answer email properly

2017-03-19 Thread Peter
On 19/03/17 02:26, Dirk Stöcker wrote: > Hello, > > I'm operating a bug tracker which sends out emails to participants > notifying of ticket changes. For new submitters it often happened, that > they simply did reply by mail which wont work with this instance. > > Now I changed our setup a bit >