Hi,
On 11/19/2014 03:27 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
[snip]
I was daydreaming about ways to get messages from the old system to the
new one, as might be required. For a bit it seemed feasible to cobble up
something to allow messages to be sent via SMTP from the old system
to the new, in a
Hi,
On 10/25/2013 09:48 AM, Rune Elvemo wrote:
Does anyone know how to use a mysql database for mynetworks?
We did manage to use it to match a single ip address, but is there a way to
match entire networks?
That can be done at the sql level.
See mysql functions INET_ATON and INET_NTOA for
On 08/22/2013 01:51 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
[snip]
The simple fact is, we do not have any users based *anywhere* but the
US, so, is what is the simplest way to block any/all non-US based client
connections on my submission port?
[snip]
Hi,
Sometimes it seems like a good solution to
On 08/07/2013 12:03 PM, John Allen wrote:
Is there any particular reason you need to accept messages 32 GB in size?
Yes. We support a business that designs and manufactures packaging and
displays. The sort of thing you might see in the aisle of a supermarket
or store selling gum, personal
On 08/05/2013 02:15 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Also - I hate to ask (it isn't your job to do their job), but could you
suggest off the top of your head what they *should* be doing? Would
properly closing all VRFY probe connections really impact performance on
their side that much - especially
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
Hi Josef,
On 04/18/2013 11:06 AM, Josef Karliak wrote:
Good morning,
our outgoing smtp server gets into a backscatter blacklist. When I
checked my logs, there were only one mailer daemon email to some server
in the time that is mentioned on the backscatter web.
In all servers in the
On 04/18/2013 12:20 PM, Josef Karliak wrote:
Hi,
thanks for reply. We thought that we have to copy existing aliases
file from imap server to incoming MX. If we reject an emailduring smtp
communication, we won't relay spam to victim. Am I right ?
Best regards
J.K.
Hi,
Please do not
Richard,
On 02/19/2013 12:34 PM, richard lucassen wrote:
I have transport front-end servers for domains:
domain1.tld
domain2.tld
domain3.tld
domain4.tld
[..]
domainX.tld
I want to blacklist 1.2.3.4/24 only for destination domain3.tld (and
reply with a 5xx if possible).
What's the
On 02/19/2013 01:58 PM, richard lucassen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:49:54 +0100
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.eu wrote:
Any hint?
google postfwd
postfix can do it with classes, but its more complicated then with
postfwd
Ok, that seems to be very nice. AFAIUI it can be implemented on
Kevin,
On 02/14/2013 09:41 PM, Kevin Blackwell wrote:
I have 2 mx records. The primary is Exchanges edge server that has it's
own internal spam filtering. The secondary is poxtfix server relaying
mail to the edge server as a backup mx record. Are you saying the
postfix server should be behind
On 02/13/2013 01:14 PM, Dominique wrote:
Hi,
I am looking at using gmail as a relayhost in our current server setup
ubuntu12.04/postfix/cyrus instead of using the ISP relayhost.
Is you ISP relayhost service bad?
I have it working, but the outgoing email address is replaced by the
gmail
On 02/13/2013 03:24 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
[snip]
- If you only have a handful of addresses, you can sign up for a
free google apps account with your own domain name. That will allow
you to relay through google. You are not required to use google as
your MX; you can continue to use your own
On 11/12/2012 05:55 PM, John Hinton wrote:
A really good use for POP is for more sensitive email situations, such
as legal, medical or financial. Some of our users want it 'off' the
server soonest. But yes, IMAP is more the standard these days. We allow
either using Dovecot. POP is faster,
Hi Stan,
On 09/25/2012 08:22 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Apparently Linux and Windows TCP window scaling doesn't always work
reliably together. Try disabling TCP window scaling on the Linux box(en):
[snip]
Perhaps off topic, but do you have any links to documents or similar
that proves that
Hi Dominique,
On 07/27/2012 11:37 AM, Dominique wrote:
However when trying to connect through a phone app (Android/email app),
there is no way to send a mail. It gets rejected all the time.
Jul 27 10:25:03 www postfix/smtpd[10868]: connect from 230.Red-176-83-
On 06/15/2012 06:03 AM, Adam Bradley wrote:
Sorry, but this sounds to me like an accident waiting to happen. I
would /strongly/ recommend getting a proper recipient list and
populating transport_maps with a user-host mapping.
My only concern is scalability, is there
On 05/03/2012 07:45 AM, Kirill Bychkov wrote:
Hi all,
I need create server with 5 IP addresses (interfaces) and postfix(es).
The role of this server is relay.
If message delivered into my mail server on one ip address, for example,
172.16.35.35, so this message should be sent from same ip:
Hi list,
I have configured an alternate transport route for mail going to
specific destination domains. I call this transport slowsmtp.
My problem is that I see no evidence in my logs that email sent to the
specific domains uses slowsmtp route for delivery.
I have defined slowsmtp in
Szia Levente!
On 04/02/2012 02:26 PM, Birta Levente wrote:
On 02/04/2012 14:31, Mikael Bak wrote:
Hi list,
I have configured an alternate transport route for mail going to
specific destination domains. I call this transport slowsmtp.
My problem is that I see no evidence in my logs
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mikael Bak put forth on 4/12/2011 7:31 AM:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
Received: from [190.221.28.39] (unknown [190.221.28.39])
In this example, reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname would have
generated a 450 rejection. You should always use
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
Received: from [190.221.28.39] (unknown [190.221.28.39])
In this example, reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname would have
generated a 450 rejection. You should always use
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname at minimum, or the more
restrictive
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.01.2011 12:29, schrieb Christian Roessner:
Why adding a contact form? If a postmaster really does his/her job and scans
the logs, finds your assistance info and enters the website, don't you think
the same admin is also able to write a mail to you
/dev/rob0 wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:12:32AM +0100, Mikael Bak wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.01.2011 12:29, schrieb Christian Roessner:
Why adding a contact form? If a postmaster really does
his/her job and scans the logs, finds your assistance info
and enters the website, don't
/dev/rob0 wrote:
http://nospam4.nodns4.us/
The Alternate media stuff is like accepting that spam has made email
impossible to rely on for communication. Antispam made right can
actually make email work again as it once did.
Mikael
IT geek 31 wrote:
Outlook is all-or-nothing - it can force encryption for all
recipients, regardless if they have a certificate or not, or none at
all.
Thunderbird and Enigmail can encrypt by default if a valid key is avalable.
HTH,
Mikael
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
Yes. I would suggest configuring a new smtpd listener for this. Most
people use the master.cf default TCP 587 listener daemon to accept
submitted mail. MUA clients will need to be configured accordingly.
Apparently your current configuration relays all mail to
Rich wrote:
Hi,
Instead of permit_mynetworks I'd suggest permit_sasl_authenticated
on the above line. The submission service is not very often used without
authentication.
Mike are you saying remove permit_mynetworks?
Yes, I do not see any reason to have it on the
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mikael Bak put forth on 9/27/2010 6:18 AM:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/26/2010 4:24 AM:
It is possible in some way to configure postfix, that SPF Passed mails
will be automatically accepted with postfix without greylisting?
If I may be blunt
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/26/2010 4:24 AM:
It is possible in some way to configure postfix, that SPF Passed mails
will be automatically accepted with postfix without greylisting?
If I may be blunt: this is a really dumb idea. Many, maybe all,
snowshoe spammers
Nick Edwards wrote:
So basically, using postifx's virtual, excluding Dovecot, what POP3
servers are people using?
Hi Nick,
We have been happy with Courier for POP and IMAP for years. Not a single
problem. We are using it with Postfix's virtual.
http://www.courier-mta.org/imap/
Most Linux
Richard Chapman wrote:
Perhaps you are describing an alternative method for google apps smtp
which I am unaware of. If so - can you point me to a description of this
alternative option?
I fail to see why you need postfix if your domain is hosted on Google
Apps. Google Apps provide you with
Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
and I still fail to understand how controlling your customers
envelope sender will help with backscatterer.org.
It will make sure that when viruses/malware on the customers computer is
sending out spam from fake addresses, the bounces goes back to the
customer
Vasya Pupkin wrote:
Hello.
First, I have spent two days reading articles and searching web for
solution but failed there. I am using postfix as an mx for my domains,
it accpets mail for different addresses withing my domains which is
then forwarded to other external domains, i.e. google.com
Steve wrote:
[big snip]
So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user in
control.
Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate for all
users. So the only way to make the user happy is to delegate the control to
him.
Can't speek for all
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
1. Spamhaus has banned Google Public DNS resolver queries.
Stan,
Do you have a good enough reason to not run your own name resolver on
your front MX machine?
IMO relying on third parties for DNS on an MX is bad design.
Mikael
Hi Stan,
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:24:53 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mikael Bak put forth on 12/9/2009 4:18 AM:
I understand why you avoid the real question. But hey - it's your server :-)
Do you? I have avoided it because these threads can quickly delve
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mikael Bak put forth on 12/8/2009 3:31 AM:
mouss wrote:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in reply
mouss wrote:
I'm looking through you, where did you go:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 imlil.netoyen.net[91.121.103.130]: Client host
rejected: Access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)
It is nice to not reject mail from people who
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu:
I could not agree more. I got this from him:
s...@hardwarefreak.com: host greer.hardwarefreak.com[65.41.216.221]
said: 554 5.7.1 thor.iszerviz.hu[62.77.131.9]: Client host rejected:
Mail not accepted from Hungary (in reply
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:32:02 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
It's looking like I was having transient issues with my resolvers. I
did some more log digging and found more dns related temp fails than I
should be having given my mail volume. I've since switched from the old
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Why bother? This is an ISP scenario, correct? The 587 command set is
standard SMTP right? Just iptables (verb) TCP 25 to TCP 587 for any IP
ranges within the ISP's MUA customer range. This is assuming said
customers already have to submit auth over TCP 25 to relay
Simon Morvan wrote:
Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
which has been very effective here.
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The Policy behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it
Larry Stone wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
Simon Morvan wrote:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The Policy behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Can you please tell me why an ADSL
Dennis Putnam wrote:
Thanks for the reply. It appears this is not supported with my version
of Postfix (2.1.5). When I try this syntax:
smtpd_helo_restrictions =
check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/heloaccept.pcre
I get this error:
fatal: unsupported dictionary type: pcre
Jacqui Caren-home wrote:
Same here - stock RH (actually CentOS) install.
[r...@gate ~]# postconf -d | grep xfer_timeout
lmtp_data_xfer_timeout = 180s
smtp_data_xfer_timeout = 180s
[r...@gate ~]#
Could this be a redhat thing?
Nope - emerged mail-mta/postfix-2.5.5 on gentoo gives
Cottalorda Sébastien wrote:
Sorry, I've courier-imap, and I use roundcubemail as webmail.
I also add to roundcube the vacation plugin that allow my users to program
themselves theirs vacations.
Everything is good, the link between the mysql database and the plugin, but
now I want to connect
Zhang Huangbin wrote:
On Oct 10, 2009, at 2:55 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
I am currently using postfix 2.3.x on RHEL for mail proxy and mailserver.
Is there any good reason to update to 2.6 ? and if is, is there any
good and stable rpm repositories for RHEL 5 on web ?
As i know,
Mathias Tausig wrote:
I just tried to replace the \n with \r\l, but to no avail. The same
problem remains.
I can be wrong here, but shouldn't that be \r\n ?
HTH,
Mikael
Steve Heaven wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 08:11 +0100, Clunk Werclick wrote:
Are you saying that it is not possible to configure it to reject users
that don't exist at the SMTP level? Are you *sure*? So if you telnet in
to it and send mail for anyoldrubb...@domain.co.uk it accepts it?
I
ram wrote:
I have a very basic ( and old) postfix installation and I want to accept
mails only after smtpauth
The rule works fine except when the recipient belongs to $myhostname
[snip]
mydestination = mumbai.nstest.com
[snip]
Hi Ram,
$mydestination is probably why the email gets
Steve Heaven wrote:
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 11:50 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
You should not accept mail for invalid recipients. Use existing
functionality to build a cache/database of valid recipients on the fly.
See: http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html#recipient
We
rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. On FreeBSD that is section 2
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=pipesektion=2apropos=0manpath=FreeBSD+7.2-RELEASE
I've read it and still have no logical clue.
# uname -r
7.2-RELEASE-p2
# man 8 pipe
Formatting page, please wait...Done.
PIPE(8)
Hi,
Roman Gelfand wrote:
Can somebody recommend a mail box server software that would be worthy
of postfix?
dovecot
Also, if anyone knows of a cool web client.
roundcube
Daniel L'Hommedieu wrote:
The spam I see pretty much all originates in China Brazil, with some
originating in Korea US. It also pretty much all originates on
dynamic IP addresses, so if there's a way to block email from dynamic
address ranges, I would very much be interested in that.
rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
It did, but not anymore.
It is now depreciated.(php-milter)
I use PHP 5.3 and already have working filter.
To finalise it, I just need a list and description of milter commands.
Those milter commands works for any type of coding language
Up to now I've
Security Admin (NetSec) wrote:
Could someone provide links to sites where IP addresses are grouped by
country? ASNs would work too but would prefer IP lists that I could put
in a file that my postfix mail gateway could read. Obvious countries
like China and Brazil I would like to block
Stefan Förster wrote:
The documentation at http://www.postfix.org/INSTALL.html#4 mentions
that earlier versions of Postfix were supported on FreeBSD 2.x to 5.x.
I think it's very likely that you can run recent Postfix versions on
newer FreeBSD releases, too.
Ack,
I have FreeBSD 7.1
Hi,
Florin Andrei wrote:
Running Postfix 2.5.5 on Linux. The system is multihomed, connected to
several private networks, and to the Internet with a dynamic DNS hostname.
Is it really recommended to run a mail server that accepts email from
outside with non static IP address?
I would not do
Jay G. Scott wrote:
[snip]
mynetworks_style = host
[snip]
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination
[snip]
Hi,
Are you running mutt on the postfix host? In that case perhaps that is
why you can send email without AUTH.
Santiago Romero wrote:
Hi,
Quoting the documentation[1]:
The unverified_recipient_defer_code parameter (default 450) specifies
the numerical Postfix SMTP server reply code when a recipient address
probe fails with some temporary error. Some sites insist on changing
this into 250. NOTE:
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 8/5/2009, Mikael Bak (mik...@t-online.hu) wrote:
So, do you mean that changing this parameter to 250 would make postfix
to accept the email?
No.
Actually, the answer to his question is yes.
You should leave this parameter in its default value.
Correct
Robert Lopez wrote:
On one mail gateway running postfix I see about 24 lines that look like this:
postfix 7579 32735 0 10:00 ?00:00:00 smtpd -n smtp -t inet
-u -c -o stress
On all the other gateways I normally see lines that look like this:
postfix 9243 3682 0 08:52 ?
Robin Smidsrød wrote:
I've had at least one client leave because he absolutely needs to have
every email, because every single email he receives could be really
important. So dealing with spam is something he just has to do. On the
other hand I have users that don't really care one way or
Santiago Romero wrote:
Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
all mail when primary MX doesn't answers breaks it for us :(
Any idea? :?
Hi,
Quoting the documentation[1]:
The unverified_recipient_defer_code parameter (default 450) specifies
the numerical
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Mikael Bak wrote:
Santiago Romero wrote:
Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
all mail when primary MX doesn't answers breaks it for us :(
Any idea? :?
Hi,
Quoting the documentation[1
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Mikael Bak wrote:
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Mikael Bak wrote:
Santiago Romero wrote:
Really, reject_unverified_recipient feature is very nice, but rejecting
all mail when primary MX doesn't answers breaks it for us :(
Any idea
.
As I said. I may have misunderstood your purpose completely :-)
HTH,
Mikael Bak
68 matches
Mail list logo
