I am setting up to use a service from an external company that utilizes
SMTP for messaging via a non-standard port. So to be clear - this is
*not* for standard mail!
Given a recipient address in the form "s123...@example.com", and I'm
given the IP and port, do I just need to define an entry in
On 9/22/2019 12:59 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 20 Sep 2019, at 17:12, Daniel Miller wrote:
I'm seeing some higher levels of attempted logins from various
sources. Are there any automated filters that are suggested?
The Spamhaus SBL and XBL are safe for use on submission ports, as is the
Su
On 9/22/2019 8:24 AM, Dominic Raferd wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 01:21, Wietse Venema wrote:
Benny Pedersen:
Daniel Miller skrev den 2019-09-20 23:12:
I'm seeing some higher levels of attempted logins from various
sources. Are there any automated filters that are suggested? Or
On 9/21/2019 9:23 PM, John Dale wrote:
Ugh .. still having trouble getting apple's mail client to work with
postfix SMTP settings.
I'm not seeing anything in the logs that I can make sense of:
[...]
Explain it to me like I'm five, please .. what are the SMTP settings
that I need to be most c
I have what seems to be a reasonably stable and functional filter
protecting my port 25 SMTP interface to the outside world. However, most
filters (including postscreen) state they are not intended for use
between MUAs and the MTA. Therefore my 587 submission port does not have
additional filte
On 4/19/2019 3:35 PM, Daniel Miller wrote:
If anyone wants to test - please try sending to the address "pubtest at
danmarkreps.com".
Well...I've gotten at least one test message (thank you Lazy G!) so I
can't be *completely* broken.
Which leaves me with two likely po
I've setup a new server - and it *was* working fine...but then I enabled
a few more settings... I was attempting to make hardenize.com happy
(and I'm glad I did - it exposed some stupid mistakes on my part).
I'm able to send without issue and receive from most other servers. But
in particular
On 2/1/2019 9:20 PM, listacco...@starionline.com wrote:
How much time? It's already been close to 2 weeks. I AM on Google's
feedback loop, have never received anything from it. I have verified
the domain with Google, correct reverse DNS, SPF, none of that has
changed.
Visit this page and
On 1/29/2019 7:40 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
I'm reconsidering the once-per-year schedule for stable releases.
Basically, a Postfix stable release freezes development at a point
in time, forever. Primarily, this is good for stability.
Are the reasons you imposed a once-per-year release previously
Not wanting to get in the way of the experts but this may help:
An oversimplified view of the transport map is it tells Postfix what
line in master.cf to use for a given recipient domain (or full
address). There's only one transport map but it can have several lines
for individual decisions.
On 8/31/2017 12:42 AM, Matteo Cazzador wrote:
Hi, is it possible to create a fast smtp server only?
This is my scenario:
a customer have 2 sites: "site1" and "site2" , but only one mail
server that reside in "site2", with TLS sasl and all the user defined
on it.
The connection of site1 is l
On 2017-06-23 17:11, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Daniel Miller:
I had a couple of accounts with too simple passwords hacked. And
obviously
my mail server is entirely too efficient - I think about 50k spams got
blasted out before I caught it (because we got in the DNSBL's).
Separate
I had a couple of accounts with too simple passwords hacked. And obviously
my mail server is entirely too efficient - I think about 50k spams got
blasted out before I caught it (because we got in the DNSBL's).
Separate from improving the password security - what can I do to limit the
damage a
June 4 2015 4:29 PM, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
> Daniel Miller:
>
>> Is there a way for a policy server to validate senders using
>> Postfix's built-in authentication (like meeting permit_mynetworks
>> and permit_sasl_authenticated)? ?Or must the necessary chec
Is there a way for a policy server to validate senders using Postfix's built-in
authentication (like meeting permit_mynetworks and permit_sasl_authenticated)?
Or must the necessary checks be duplicated?
--
Daniel
I don't think that's the case - the users in question submit using Thunderbird.
--
Daniel
June 1 2015 5:46 PM, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
> Daniel Miller:
>
>> Is there a way of removing return-receipt requests from internal
>> senders for a particular external reci
Is there a way of removing return-receipt requests from internal senders for a
particular external recipient? Or does this require a separate tool/script to
pass sent messages through?
--
Daniel
On 1/22/2015 3:13 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
Thanks. I appreciate the reminder. The methodology is long standing
and should be altered. The users have only the tools offered to them.
However, not trying to be argumentative at all -
While I agree Bcc is correct, I am having difficulty acceptin
On 9/10/2014 10:35 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel Miller:
This question is actually two questions - neither of which are
Postfix-specific but email-generic - but this list is the best resource
I have to ask such questions.
First - I've been contributing to "Project Tarbaby"
On 9/10/2014 10:24 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
If your system ever responds with a 4XX, retries will hit the
secondaries. You need to at least exclude clients that first tried the
primary and tempfailed. However, transient connection or DNS problems
can also cause a legitimate client to skip the
This question is actually two questions - neither of which are
Postfix-specific but email-generic - but this list is the best resource
I have to ask such questions.
First - I've been contributing to "Project Tarbaby", which means I have
a pair of secondary MX records below my primary which acc
21 matches
Mail list logo
