What's the best way to integrate the Spamhaus DBL for folks not already
using SA et al?
Will the following work, or does it check only the entire hostname, and not
the domain portion in isolation as well?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_rhsbl_client dbl.spamhaus.org
--
Stan
Ansgar Wiechers put forth on 3/3/2010 9:01 AM:
> I was under the impression that his Postfix and Dovecot are running on
> the same (remote) host, and he's using Postfix as a smarthost for his
> outbound mail. If that's the case, then there certainly is an advantage,
> as his client won't have to t
Noel Jones put forth on 3/3/2010 7:16 PM:
> additionally, it appears that dbl.spamhaus.org lists wildcard
> subdomains. So for example if dbl lists "spammer.tld" and the HELO name
> is random.foo.spammer.tld it should still be caught by reject_rhsbl_helo.
Checking the HELO name against the DBL i
Noel Jones put forth on 3/3/2010 7:16 PM:
>>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>> reject_rhsbl_client dbl.spamhaus.org
>> (note for the archives: that's not a complete
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions statement.)
BTW, what is incomplete WRT the above restriction example I gave?
reject_rhsbl_clien
/dev/rob0 put forth on 3/3/2010 10:31 PM:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:29:50PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Noel Jones put forth on 3/3/2010 7:16 PM:
>>
>>>>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>>>> reject_rhsbl_client dbl.spamhaus.org
>>
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 3/4/2010 1:55 AM:
> "The Spamhaus DBL is a realtime database of domains (typically web site
> domains) found in spam messages. Mail server software capable of
> scanning email message body contents for URIs can use the DBL to
> identify, classify or reject spam contai
J. Roeleveld put forth on 3/4/2010 2:12 AM:
> On Thursday 04 March 2010 08:57:30 Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Thanks for all the tips.
>>
>> Postfix and Dovecot are indeed on the same box and I do agree with you that
>> it would require one heck of a hack to get this to work.
>
Len Conrad put forth on 3/4/2010 4:16 AM:
> If listsen...@domain.tld, send to Internet
>
> Else, send to MX gateway
This may be what you're looking for.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#sender_dependent_relayhost_maps
sender_dependent_relayhost_maps (default: empty)
A sender-depende
Len Conrad put forth on 3/4/2010 6:40 AM:
> But we don't have a relayhost for the sender listsen...@domain.tld. We want
> that trusted sender to bypass the (scanning, weak) relayhost and nexthop to
> Internet.
>
> in the sender_dependent postfix box,
>
> relayhost = [mx.domain.tld]
>
> sen
Noel Jones put forth on 3/4/2010 2:51 PM:
> This patch adds a "reject_rhsbl_reverse_client" function that uses the
> unverified client hostname for the RBL lookup.
Cool. Thanks Noel.
> The idea is that this might increase rhsbl hit rates if the hostname is
> more frequently available. On the ot
John WInther put forth on 3/6/2010 12:57 PM:
> Thanks for info, I am aware of the manual and I have previus tryed to
> change the myhostname to soapnut.dk, I still got the reverse dns error.
> I gave me an idear to reverse resolve the ip address registred in mx,
> and the reply from that test was
Greg A. Woods put forth on 3/6/2010 2:58 PM:
> At Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:42:13 -0600, Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
> Subject: Re: reverse dns fails with multiple domains
>>
>> RFC does not dictate that your forward and reverse dns names match.
>
> Common sense and common de
mouss put forth on 3/6/2010 3:01 PM:
> so OP not only has a "generic" name, but it doesn't resolve back to the
> IP. If he can get his ISP to fix his reverse (preferably using a custom
> reverse), then maybe things will get better.
I assume this is difficult if not impossible, given it appears re
John WInther put forth on 3/6/2010 4:18 PM:
> My primary concern is that some mailservers deny sending mail to my domains
> if the reverse dns lookup fails. If I set myhostname to one of my public
> domains, the reply string from HELO is ok, but the reverse dns lookup
> fails,
> If not possible to
mouss put forth on 3/6/2010 6:03 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>> [snip]
>> A web server with a single IP address hosting 378 vitural domains. Should
>> it have 379 PTRs? One for the host itself and one for each virtual domain?
>> Of course not.
>>
>>
Zhang Huangbin put forth on 3/12/2010 6:36 AM:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Goutam Baul wrote:
>
>> Hello Everybody,
>>
>> I am facing a scenario where the client needs a mailing solution while the
>> user information will be kept in a Microsoft Active Directory server. I was
>> trying to
Wilberth Pérez put forth on 3/12/2010 9:57 AM:
> Hi everybody
>
> any one knows, how i could edit dovecot to assign user quotas ?
You are asking on the wrong list. Please use:
http://www.dovecot.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dovecot
mailto:dove...@dovecot.org
--
Stan
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/15/2010 10:22 AM:
>> Since this does not work, is there an available option to move
>> myhostname out of main.cf and into another file name or type?
>
> To set a fixed Postfix name, set the right hostname in main.cf, or
> set the right hostname in the kernel. If you
Erik Logtenberg put forth on 3/15/2010 11:16 AM:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a possibility to use a DNS-based RBL whitelist in Postfix? In
> The Netherlands we have an NL-Whitelist, which contains the IP's of all
> major ISP's. By using this whitelist one can make sure that accidental
> automatic blacklist
Manuel Mely put forth on 3/15/2010 9:10 AM:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to change my hostname based on the relay i'm using?
>
> For example, i have postfix servers in an ha config that relays to three
> differents mail service providers, this providers restricts me in what
> helo i have
> to use; so
postfix users put forth on 3/19/2010 8:34 PM:
> Hi,
>
> I am migrating the Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2010, but before we switch over
> to new server, I want make a copy of email to new server for testing.
>
>
> Existing Config:
>
> Postfix -> Amavisd -> Exchange 2000
>
> Here what I want :
>
Voytek Eymont put forth on 3/20/2010 5:52 PM:
> one of the blacklist I use it is ix.dnsbl.manitu.net
>
> to my knowledge, it has been OK since I've set it up, with no known
> complaints
>
> what is the user's opinions on it's usefulness ?
This is one of the downsides to fully automated low thres
Randy put forth on 3/24/2010 3:55 PM:
> dig -x 208.43.143.111
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> 111.143.43.208.in-addr.arpa. 3600 INPTR
> 208.43.143.111-static.reverse.softlayer.com.
Your problem isn't the Exchange server per se. Your problem is that you're
forwarding spam to it, and its anti-spam
Glenn English put forth on 4/1/2010 5:42 PM:
> I was asking about Postfix running as a daemon on the firewall computer that
> handles routing and inspecting traffic between the WAN, the DMZ, and the LAN.
> This Postfix would intercept and inspect incoming SMTP connections (and drop
> some) befo
Robert Lopez put forth on 4/6/2010 1:56 PM:
> Then then this is working:
> $ postmap -q 222.254.228.0 cidr:/etc/postfix/cidr-ip
> DISCARD
> $ postmap -q 222.254.228.1 cidr:/etc/postfix/cidr-ip
> DISCARD
>
> So, now I understand.
Don't feel bad Robert. I went through pretty much the same thing y
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 4/10/2010 2:21 AM:
> I'm using zen.spamhaus.org in postscreen and,
>
>reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
>reject_rbl_client bogons.cymru.com
>reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org
>reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org
Reinaldo de Carvalho put forth on 4/10/2010 5:56 PM:
> In other words:
>
> /([0-9]{1,3}(\.|-)){3}.*\.[a-z]+/ reject generic hostname
> /(^a?dsl|a?dsl(\.|-)|(\.|-)a?dsl|(\.|-)d(yn|ip|ial)(\.|-)|(\.|-)cable(\.|-)|(\.|-)user(\.|-)|^dynamic|(\.|-)dynamic|dynamic(\.|-)|(\.|-)ppp(oe)?(\.|-|)|^ppp)/
>
Noel Jones put forth on 4/10/2010 8:16 PM:
> On 4/10/2010 5:49 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>> ...
>> check_client_access regexp:/etc/postfix/fqrdns.regexp
>> ...
>
>
> You'll probably get more hits usi
Alex put forth on 4/10/2010 7:28 PM:
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>...
>>reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
>>reject_rhsbl_client dbl.spamhaus.org
>>reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org
>>reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org
>
> I'm familiar with ze
"Thou shalt not quote RFC whilst composing in HTML or RTF!"
I think that's chiseled on a stone tablet somewhere. If not it should have
been.
--
Stan
Mike Abbott put forth on 4/12/2010 8:56 AM:
>>> + if (in_stream == NULL) {
>>> +/* must fail the entire transaction */
>>> +chat_reset(s
Steve put forth on 4/12/2010 10:56 AM:
> AFAIK Outlook often saves the messages in a local Sent folder if you use
> Outlook as a pure IMAP client. On the IMAP server nothing gets saved.
>
> But you are right. All the other clients that I know save the message on the
> server or at least are abl
Gary Smith put forth on 4/13/2010 7:07 PM:
> Currently we are using mysql plugin for this and are switching over to static
> files (or files generated on a schedule from the database). Anyway, looking
> at the docs, it says that the entry need only been found in the file to be
> accepted, other
Eduardo Júnior put forth on 4/15/2010 8:04 AM:
> Due the high load of e-mails over my link, I want that
> my messages outgoing through more IPs with only postfix box.
If you only have one physical link, how will sending mail from multiple IPs
within the same subnet solve your link congestion prob
CT put forth on 4/15/2010 4:43 PM:
> I have several boxes that "check" my relay every 40 seconds to
> check that the server is up.
>
> After multiple attempts to get the number of checks reduced I would
> like the know the preferred way to block specific IP addresses in Postfix.
>
> I have no iss
Eduardo Júnior put forth on 4/15/2010 4:52 PM:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Eduardo Júnior put forth on 4/15/2010 8:04 AM:
>>
>>> Due the high load of e-mails over my link, I want that
>>> my messages outgoing through more IPs wi
Alex put forth on 4/18/2010 4:45 PM:
> Is it possible to use maps_rbl_domains instead of reject_rbl_client
> here? It appears this machine has a version of postfix that doesn't
> understand reject_rbl_client.
maps_rbl_domains (default: empty)
Obsolete feature: use the reject_rbl_client featur
Noel Jones put forth on 4/18/2010 10:55 PM:
> Yes, reject_unknown_client_hostname is still too strict for us. And
> we're very strict!
I ran with this for a short while. Had problems with it rejecting Hotmail
connections. And these weren't Hotmail user mails beings delivered, but
responses to
Alex put forth on 4/19/2010 12:11 AM:
> It looks like I have a big project ahead of me to upgrade. What kind
> of process is involved with going from such an old version to the
> current, independent of all the other software?
Not much. Just create/modify the new main.cf and any other config fil
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 4/19/2010 8:29 AM:
> * John Peach :
>
>> Your nslookup shows you using 207.172.3.20 as a nameserver:
>>
>> 20.3.172.207.in-addr.arpa name = auth1.dns.rcn.net
>>
>> Your ISP's nameserver. You need to run your own, so that you query
>> spamhaus directly. They are
Wietse Venema put forth on 4/24/2010 7:02 AM:
> Perhaps you missed this in prior email:
>
> - Send non-verbose logging.
>
> - Send logging that covers an entire message life cycle from the
> SMTP port to final delivery.
>
> Wietse
Wietse, check the listserv logs and your MUA. He sent th
Wietse Venema put forth on 4/24/2010 8:39 AM:
> - Your mail server is suffering from 100x red-shift due to the
> rapid expansion of the universe.
>
> Sending Postfix off into space to study time dilation effects, that
> is an option that I haven't considered before.
I deleted a very similar co
Wietse Venema put forth on 4/24/2010 10:48 AM:
> Humor is OK provided that the receiving end does not feel ridiculed.
That's pretty much the reason I removed the humor before sending.
> In this case, I made my joke the end of a list of more serious
> explanations for the observed delays. That sh
Y z put forth on 4/28/2010 1:36 AM:
> Where do I start troubleshooting?
Start by making sure that these match:
/etc/resolv.conf
/var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf
When cli dns tools work, that usually means the first file above is correct,
fsvo "correct". When postfix can't resolve dns, it usu
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 4/28/2010 1:50 AM:
> Y z put forth on 4/28/2010 1:36 AM:
>
>> Where do I start troubleshooting?
>
> Start by making sure that these match:
>
> /etc/resolv.conf
> /var/spool/postfix/etc/resolv.conf
>
> When cli dns tools work, that u
Y z put forth on 4/28/2010 2:08 AM:
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:56:55 -0500
>> From: s...@hardwarefreak.com
>> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> Subject: Re: 'Domain not found' errors after Ubuntu upgrade
>>
I'm current using recipient_bcc_maps to forward spam trap emails to a dnsbl.
I've been asked by another dnsbl to provide them the same trap data.
According to recipient_bcc_maps, I can't bcc to more than one address. I
thought of creating a local alias that expands to both addresses and bcc'ing
t
Wietse Venema put forth on 4/29/2010 9:05 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> I'm current using recipient_bcc_maps to forward spam trap emails to a dnsbl.
>> I've been asked by another dnsbl to provide them the same trap data.
>> According to recipient_bcc_maps, I can't b
Uwe Dippel put forth on 5/12/2010 4:58 AM:
> This is quite strange:
>
> I have been running fetchmail from a cronjob for a few years now, to
> collect my messages from an IMAP server and forward it to another one.
>
> This was and is the (only) cronjob:
> # m h dom mon dow command
> 5 * * * *
Josh Cason put forth on 5/13/2010 5:13 PM:
> But this is a static ip number and the mail server it is using is mine.
> These are customers of ours that we monitor our servers. Now If I put
> the extact ip address into mynetworks. It works. But I don't think that
> is proper.
Why would this not be
punit jain put forth on 5/19/2010 12:52 AM:
> I am using Postfix as an MTA but I see nowadays lot of spam going out of my
> system. I have used transport based throttling for a domain but I am looking
> for options for per sender based rate limiting. Can I achieve per user based
> throttling using
Punit Jain put forth on 5/19/2010 4:19 AM:
>
>> Throttling is not the solution to fight spam originating within your
> network. If you know who is doing it, boot him. If you don't, identify
> who it is, then boot him. Period. Why are you playing paddy cakes with a
> spammer on your network?
>
> I
JF Mezei put forth on 5/21/2010 4:20 AM:
> connect from cpe-67-252-139-22.buffalo.res.rr.com [67.252.139.22]
> May 19 01:09:15 velo postfix/smtpdP26473]: warning:
> 22.139.252.67.zen.spamhaus.org: RBL lookup error: Host or domain name
> not found. Name service error for name=22.139.252.67.zen.spam
brian put forth on 5/26/2010 1:53 PM:
> FWIW, aside from aliases for the usual postmaster, abuse, and webmaster
> addresses, this domain has just 2 actual addresses to be maintained. So,
> might a whitelist approach be the way to go? Or, is this something i
> should leave to iptables/fail2ban?
Ca
Noel Jones put forth on 5/26/2010 3:56 PM:
> Use ps or top to see how much RAM each smtpd uses, guesstimate from
> there. If system swaps, reduce.
> Postscreen will help with this, since a single postscreen process can
> handle thousands of connections.
To lower memory consumption on your VPS, y
brian put forth on 5/26/2010 8:28 PM:
> On 10-05-26 09:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> brian put forth on 5/26/2010 1:53 PM:
>>
>>> FWIW, aside from aliases for the usual postmaster, abuse, and webmaster
>>> addresses, this domain has just 2 actual addresses
Nataraj put forth on 5/26/2010 10:06 PM:
> How does rate limiting work in conjunction with postscreen? Can the
> various rate limits be applied to postcreen or would rate limiting no
> longer be necessary. I run in a vmware virtual machine which used to
> fall on its knees from both bot and snow
Ioannis Tsouvalas put forth on 5/28/2010 4:09 AM:
> My guess so far is to go and lower the link speed between the Shorewall,
> Postfix, and maybe even SBS2008, and that's because similar problems having
> been encountered where the MTU is bigger than 1500. Now, the only reason I
> haven't done it
Ioannis Tsouvalas put forth on 5/28/2010 6:41 AM:
> Stan thanks for the reply, as well as the insight regarding the difference
> between soft and hard nic devices. The only reason I'm pointing out the link
> pulse as well as the MTU, is that my search so far points me towards that
> direction. Now
Wietse Venema put forth on 5/28/2010 9:37 AM:
> Ioannis Tsouvalas:
>>>
>>> Ioannis Tsouvalas:
451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing
451 Temporary local problem - please try later
>
> These you can do nothing about, except perhaps retry when the remote
> system is unde
Ioannis Tsouvalas put forth on 5/30/2010 9:47 AM:
> Stan thanks for the reply, and please excuse me for the time interval in
> between your post and my reply. "Geek" and "neato!" wasn't exactly what I
> was aiming for, but still I appreciate that you identified the "geeky"
> complexity of the idea
Ioannis Tsouvalas put forth on 5/30/2010 2:46 PM:
> I have disabled shorewall on Postfix machine using #shorewall clear , but
> I'm still working on clearing shorewall on the dedicated machine, but I
> haven't managed to make it happen since all the NAT has been implemented on
> the shorewall confi
Ioannis Tsouvalas put forth on 5/30/2010 2:56 PM:
> Stan, thanks again for your input, I am getting the idea and I'm working
> towards that direction, still from 3 months testing this implementation has
> moved to production, and I am working remotely, so "being careful" is one
> way to describe my
Curtis Maurand put forth on 6/1/2010 2:13 PM:
> I was editing the table by hand, but it seemed to be easier to do via
> the dbmail administrator and the mysql lookup. two domains, I'm simply
> filtering mail for and then sending along to their exchange server via
> smtp (sort of a postini type se
Matt Hayes put forth on 6/2/2010 9:46 PM:
> Yes.. I know this has come up quite a bit, but on freenode in #postfix
> this discussion once again erupted when someone mentioned a bug in
> postfix and referencing this:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214741
>
>
> Now, I'm not a
Jan Kohnert put forth on 6/3/2010 5:55 PM:
> Or let the Debian people write that patch for their version, as their users
> are apparently the only ones who comlain and such a fix could probably mess
> up
> more postfix-experienced users... ;)
Please don't paint the Debian user base with such a
Moe put forth on 6/3/2010 8:10 PM:
> So with that, no hard feelings. I'll make sure to not bother
> you guys again.
No hard feelings intended Moe.
What I just can't wrap my small brain around is how the pain and effort to
insert 'myhostname = mx1.example.com' into main.cf is greater than the pai
Victor Duchovni put forth on 6/3/2010 8:29 PM:
> And Stan also.
As usual, you're right Victor. My apologies to Moe for the "brain damaged"
comment. Unprofessional and uncalled for.
Sorry Moe.
--
Stan
Paul McGougan put forth on 6/3/2010 9:42 PM:
> So that's not really a possibility unfortunately.
What is possible is walking to a new provider.
--
Stan
Noel Jones put forth on 6/8/2010 8:58 AM:
> and while I've never met anyone named Wietse, I seem to remember seeing
> that name in the postfix copyright statement. His advice might be worth
> paying attention to.
https://researcher.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-wietse
http://en.wikipedia
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 4:15 AM:
I'd attack the problem from another angle. You may be better served by adding
some more dnsbl checks rather that fighting spoofs:
http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a111.67.207.126
As you can see the IP sample you gave is
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
> Thanks for suggestion, I'll apply it.
You're welcome.
> But if somebody can help discover (configuration) error which
> prioritizing postmaster that would be nice.
"postconf -d | grep mail_version" might be helpful. IIRC some early versions
Does Postfix consider "architettobellucci.com" an FQDN? I've always
understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my understanding
of FQDN is correct, then a spam slipped through that I believe should have
been rejected by reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname. What have I configured
inco
Curtis Maurand put forth on 6/11/2010 7:30 AM:
> currently I have in my smtpd_client_restrictions: ...
> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
> permit
>
> Is flat out rejecting clients on the RBL's considered too agressive?
> should I just let spamassassin handl
Wietse Venema put forth on 6/11/2010 9:21 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> Does Postfix consider "architettobellucci.com" an FQDN? I've always
>> understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my
>> understanding
>> of FQDN is correct, then a spam
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 1:37 PM:
> В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 16:48 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
>> В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
>>> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for suggestion
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 2:24 PM:
> This client name unmungled:
>
> smtp.harddriveme.com [111.67.206.181]
This should have been caught by one of the two SORBS lists you said you added
per my advice. SORBS has been listing the parent /20 since Nov 2009.
Netblock: 111.67.1
JC Putter put forth on 6/13/2010 1:03 PM:
> hi everyone,
>
> i have a postfix (2.3.3) server running with fetchmail to retrieve mail from
> the actual mailserver, the problem is that only the office users get their
> my from the local postfix/fetchmail server, the remote users connect to the
> act
Mark Goodge put forth on 6/18/2010 4:28 AM:
> 1. Just discard spam.
By this I hope you mean rejecting the message at SMTP time, not accept and
move to /dev/null.
Regarding the OP's original issue, im my experience, nearly all spam that has
a 'from' address matching the local 'to' address is bot
Ben Munat put forth on 6/19/2010 5:20 PM:
> What am I missing?
You are missing the required evidence that would allow us to help you. We
need actual error messages, log entries, postconf -n output, etc. The list
welcome message told you what to provide.
Based on what you've provided so far, we
Ben Munat put forth on 6/19/2010 5:52 PM:
> On 6/19/10 3:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Ben Munat put forth on 6/19/2010 5:20 PM:
>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>
>> You are missing the required evidence that would allow us to help
> you. We
>> need ac
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 6/19/2010 6:12 PM:
> Ben Munat put forth on 6/19/2010 5:52 PM:
>> On 6/19/10 3:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Ben Munat put forth on 6/19/2010 5:20 PM:
>>>
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> You are missing the
Wietse Venema put forth on 6/19/2010 5:51 PM:
> Ben Munat:
>> main.cf:inet_interfaces = 64.69.38.41,127.0.0.1
>>
>> and I hook up the main smtp process in master.cf like this:
>>
>> master.cf:-o smtp_bind_address=64.69.38.41
>
> This works only on the SMTP CLIENT. Not the SMTP SERVER.
And app
Stefan Foerster put forth on 6/20/2010 5:16 AM:
> Two questions regarding proxymap:
>
> 1. Is a single proxymap(8) process able to handle multiple lookup
> tables? I.e., taking the example from the manpage, modifying it to
For read maps, yes. And even better, one process will do multiple map typ
Ben Munat put forth on 6/20/2010 2:36 PM:
> On 6/19/10 10:31 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 6/19/2010 5:51 PM:
>>> Ben Munat:
>>>> main.cf:inet_interfaces = 64.69.38.41,127.0.0.1
>>>>
>>>> and I hook up the main sm
Rui Francisco put forth on 6/21/2010 7:22 PM:
> Hi,
>
> i would liek to know if its possible to forward emails in postfix with
> virtual users, or to put a vacation message.
>
> All the users are saved in a mysql database and postfix delivers emails
> normally. The problem is how to forward email
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 6/22/2010 6:50 AM:
> Zitat von Ram :
>> Does that mean I can have them over different partitions on different
>> disks. I had initially assumed all the postfix spool must be on the
>> same partition
>
> From my understanding the spool must be on the same partitio
Steffan A. Cline put forth on 6/22/2010 8:01 PM:
> It's a long post. Sorry.
Yeah, it was long, and probably overly ambitious for a single thread topic.
Instead of addressing your questions about individual main.cf parameter
settings and policy services, I'm going to make a few suggestions which s
Jason Bailey, Sun Advocate Webmaster put forth on 6/22/2010 10:32 PM:
> (Note: I do have to disclose one piece of information. Recently our
> server was automatically blacklisted by our ISP for spam that was being
> relayed through our system from a series of external sources. I've
> tested both s
Steffan A. Cline put forth on 6/23/2010 8:39 AM:
> I am assuming from your conf file you have:
>> POSTGREY_OPTS="--inet=127.0.0.1:6"
> From the options I see, I could put that into the startup file above by
> changing:
> OPTIONS="--unix=$SOCKET"
> To
> OPTIONS="--inet=127.0.0.1:6"
Yeah, t
Michael put forth on 6/24/2010 3:07 AM:
> I want to be able to monitor SASL users to get quick notification if
> something
> is out of the ordinary - like a spammer using a compromised account to send
> emails.
>
> What tool(s) can be used to achieve this?
Given the nature of your requirement,
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
> /etc/postfix/transport:
> server2.com: relay:[10.0.2.73]
>
> /etc/postfix/master.cf:
> relay unix - - n - 200 smtp
> -o smtp_helo_timeout=3s
> -o smtp_connect_timeout=3s
> -o disable_dn
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/25/2010 8:01 AM:
> With the settings above, the queue is now down to 2442 within 20
> minutes. It was at 21,000 mark when I sent my first email below
> (nearly 12 hours ago), so the progress has been very minimal until the
> change above. The bottleneck has now
Basanta shrestha put forth on 6/27/2010 3:53 AM:
> Dear All,
>
> CentOS 5.2
>
> Followed http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/postfix and installed
> postfix dovecot system-switch-mail system-switch-mail-gnome
>
> Local delivery and local receipt works ok. Couldn't send email to
> external mail using 1
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/27/2010 5:50 PM:
> From your questions above, I could see where you're coming from that if
> Server2 has performance problem then it would make sense to see the
> queue built up at Server1. I can confirm server2 is very underload at
> any time, the server is overs
Basanta shrestha put forth on 6/27/2010 11:26 PM:
> Dear Stan,
> I doubt it is absolutely necessary to pay for that service.
> Please refer
Yes, it is necessary. You can't host a mail server without paying someone
some amount of money. If you actually _read_ my previous email and followed
the li
Mihira Fernando put forth on 6/28/2010 2:20 AM:
> you can use the dyndns.org free account for email by using the dyndns
> FQDN allocated for the server in your domain's MX entry.
>
> May not be the perfect way but it works.
What domain MX entry?
Why would someone pay for DNS hosting for a sing
Noel Jones put forth on 6/28/2010 6:56 AM:
> Don't confuse mail routing (mail directed from the internet to your
> server via DNS records) with mail hosting (mail accepted somewhere and
> forwarded/proxied to your server). Dyndns provides mail routing for
> free; their mail hosting service is a p
Mihira Fernando put forth on 6/28/2010 3:28 AM:
> Also its not CNAME that you use. Its the A record.
My mistake. You can actually point the MX for another domain at the dyndns
fqdn. I got my thought process screwed up due to all the goofiness of how
DynDNS does some things, and the specific sce
Dipak Biswal put forth on 6/30/2010 8:38 AM:
> Hi List,
>
> I am trying to setup postfix for mass mailing. I need help in following
> areas:
>
> 1. how can we send mails using different IP's .
> 2. how can we set sleep time between mails.
We are not in the business of assisting spammers here. S
Dipak Biswal put forth on 6/30/2010 10:56 PM:
>> http://urbanmarketingnetwork.com/blog/index.php/2009/03/13/improve-mass-email-deliverablity-the-long-way/
The link to the main document you need to be reading is broken at the page
above. Here is where you should start reading:
http://www.maawg.o
101 - 200 of 1297 matches
Mail list logo
