Steven Dickenson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Bingo. I have a similar setup in place (s/postfix/sendmail/) and I
>> don't have my Exchange box listed as an MX at all. I also have port
>> 25 to the Exchange box firewalled off at the router to avoid
>> portscanning.
>
> Not a good idea, IM
>-Original Message-
>From: Steven Dickenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Additionally, if you ever need to send directly from your Exchange
>server, not having an MX associated with that machine *can* cause your
>mail to look spammy to certain hard-line sites.
>
>- S
I haven't ever had
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bingo. I have a similar setup in place (s/postfix/sendmail/) and I
don't have my Exchange box listed as an MX at all. I also have port
25 to the Exchange box firewalled off at the router to avoid
portscanning.
Not a good idea, IMHO. What happens if your SA gateway go
David Brodbeck wrote:
Frank Coons wrote:
Does Exim allows LDAP queries across a DMZ or do both machines need to
be either inside or outside the DMZ for it to work?
Exim (and anything else) shouldnt care if one machine is in the DMZ.
They dont both need to be in the DMZ to work. However,
Frank Coons wrote:
Does Exim allows LDAP queries across a DMZ or do both machines need to
be either inside or outside the DMZ for it to work?
I've never tried it, but it's just a TCP connection. As far as I know
it should work, as long as the firewall is not blocking the connection.
I use
Tony pace wrote:
Thanks for all the input.
The diagram was "simplistic" - the real MSE is a couple layers away.
One thing that no one has mentioned is that it's vitally important that
the edge gateway (the postfix system) have a way of knowing what users
are valid. Otherwise you will end up
Thanks for all the input.
The diagram was "simplistic" - the real MSE is a couple layers away.
Tony
Kristopher Austin wrote:
> You state in your diagram that you plan to have the MSE box as the
> secondary MX record. This would not be a good idea. From experience,
> we have seen that spammers try the secondary MX first in hopes of
> finding a server that is not protected by a spam scanner. Thi
1000s of users, then you better
have
more then one server. Or a big HD for the queue ;)
--Chris
-Original Message-
From: E. Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:16 PM
To: spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: SA Gateway -> MS Exchange -- what
Subject: SA Gateway -> MS Exchange -- what if MSE down?
we are looking to implement SA in our environment this best describes
what we want to do.
[SPAM/HAM] --> [ SA GATEWAY] -> [MS
EXCHANGE]
- system wide filtering - all user
t: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:16 PM
>To: spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SA Gateway -> MS Exchange -- what if MSE down?
>
>
>Hi Tony,
>
>I have this same setup, and due to the nature of Exchange it
>seems to go
>down a lot more often than the post
Hi Tony,
I have this same setup, and due to the nature of Exchange it seems to go
down a lot more often than the postfix box. What happens is that Postfix
queues the e-mail locally and delivers it when the Exchange box comes
back up.
Works perfectly, no extra setup required. The mail just si
we are looking to implement SA in our environment this best describes
what we want to do.
[SPAM/HAM] --> [ SA GATEWAY] -> [MS EXCHANGE]
- system wide filtering - all user mailboxes
- postfix transport
13 matches
Mail list logo
