Thank you to all for your responses. I'm learning a lot from them.
I was curious about the multiple froms in the received header. It's
unconventional to me. In my twenty years dealing with mail I can't recall
receiving a message with this kind of header before. Also, in Mailman there no
fi
Stan Hoeppner:
> Noel Jones put forth on 4/13/2011 7:38 AM:
>
> > Repeat 100 times:
> > The client is marked "unknown" if *any* of the three tests fail.
>
> Got it. Thanks for clarifying this Noel, and Sahil. The postconf
> documentation covers both reject parameters, but it doesn't explain the
On 4/13/2011 5:07 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 4/13/2011 7:38 AM:
Repeat 100 times:
The client is marked "unknown" if *any* of the three tests fail.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying this Noel, and Sahil. The postconf
documentation covers both reject parameters, but it doesn
Noel Jones put forth on 4/13/2011 7:38 AM:
> Repeat 100 times:
> The client is marked "unknown" if *any* of the three tests fail.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying this Noel, and Sahil. The postconf
documentation covers both reject parameters, but it doesn't explain the
criteria used to decide when
On 4/12/2011 10:41 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 4/12/2011 6:56 PM:
On 4/12/2011 4:19 PM, 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
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 23:55:18 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Sahil Tandon put forth on 4/12/2011 10:58 PM:
> > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 16:19:03 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> >> Mikael Bak put forth on 4/12/2011 7:31 AM:
> >>> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >>> [snip]
>
> > Received: from [190.
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
>>> reject_u
Sahil Tandon put forth on 4/12/2011 10:58 PM:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 16:19:03 -0500, 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_unkno
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 16:19:03 -0500, 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
> >> generate
Noel Jones put forth on 4/12/2011 6:56 PM:
> On 4/12/2011 4:19 PM, 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_host
On 4/12/2011 4:19 PM, 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
rej
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
>> reject_unknown_reverse_client_h
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 rejec
Jose Hales-Garcia put forth on 4/11/2011 8:00 PM:
>
> On Apr 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> My first idea for handling these messages is writing a filter in
>>> header_checks using regexp. Is this the best approach to take using
>>> Postfix 2.4.3?
>>
>> Probably not. Provide
On Apr 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> My first idea for handling these messages is writing a filter in
>> header_checks using regexp. Is this the best approach to take using Postfix
>> 2.4.3?
>
> Probably not. Provide the full header and we may be able to give you
> better opt
Jose Hales-Garcia put forth on 4/11/2011 4:47 PM:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've recently been getting spam that has the first received header filled in
> with multiple users. This is an example.
>
> Received: from 79.14.233.16 (account ,
> ,
>HELO domain)
> by domain (CommuniGate P
Hello,
I've recently been getting spam that has the first received header filled in
with multiple users. This is an example.
Received: from 79.14.233.16 (account ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
17 matches
Mail list logo
