Bill Hacker wrote:
However, and this is the important point, looking for multiple different
HELO values from a single ip is a _MASSIVELY_ effective way of detecting
apparent ? potential ?
You're slightly too terse for me to tell exactly what you're asking here.
However, looking for
Morning all,
Am I right to assume the error 451 rejected: temporarily unable to verify
sender address could be caused by incorrectly configured DNS for the senders
domain? When I do a lookup of the MX records for the senders domain I don't get
any results!
Thanks
Gareth
I need migrate a Exim server to a MS Exchange Server.
I have today +3000 mailboxes in Exim server, and if I migrate de users
connecting MS outlook by POP in Exim server and store de messages in a
Exchange Server or in PST locally I will spend much time.
Somebody knows as I a make to migrate this
Andrew - Supernews wrote:
However, and this is the important point, looking for multiple different
HELO values from a single ip is a _MASSIVELY_ effective way of detecting
spam sources. If you configure your server to use a variable HELO then
you _will_, sooner or later, find that people end up
Richard Clayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] said, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've had an idea that could make greylisting more useful
in the presence of spammers that retry. I thought I'd publicise
it somewhere to see what people think.
why not on an anti-spam mailing list ? here it's hit and
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Ivo Michiel wrote:
With exim3 it was possible add the folowing lines in exim.conf:
message_filter = /etc/exim/system_filter.exim
message_body_visible = 5000
The function is to filter for EVERY user at certain thing.
Now it is not possible, is there a
--On 18 January 2006 22:57:29 -0300 Jackson Rodrigo Braga
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I need migrate a Exim server to a MS Exchange Server.
I have today +3000 mailboxes in Exim server, and if I migrate de users
connecting MS outlook by POP in Exim server and store de messages in a
Exchange
Ivo Michiel wrote:
Strange, when I add the line:
system_filter = /etc/exim4/system_filter.exim
in the config file: /etc/exim4/exim4.conf.template
I get this result:
Exim configuration error in line 669 of
/var/lib/exim4/config.autogenerated.tmp:
option system_filter unknown
Invalid new
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:57:25 +0200, John Oxley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How do I implement a relay_from_domains that works exactly like
relay_from_hosts just on domains. I want to do this so my clients can
only send mail from their own domains.
That's a really really really bad idea since
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:24:15 -0500, Tony Heal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OK Sarge has not been out that long
Wohoo! Now, that's something totally different.
Other distributions would already have released once again since
Debian sarge's release, and Debian gets frequently bashed for not
releasing
Marc Haber wrote:
How do I implement a relay_from_domains that works exactly like
relay_from_hosts just on domains. I want to do this so my clients can
only send mail from their own domains.
That's a really really really bad idea since everybody can happily
spam anybody through your server
--On 19 January 2006 13:13:24 + Ian Eiloart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 18 January 2006 22:57:29 -0300 Jackson Rodrigo Braga
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I need migrate a Exim server to a MS Exchange Server.
I have today +3000 mailboxes in Exim server, and if I migrate de users
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Nigel Wade wrote:
If you rely on STARTTLS, is it possible to enforce STARTTLS *before*
authentication, so some user doesn't configure their MUA to send their
Of course. Look at server_advertise_condition
Ah, I see. I can use this condition to ensure that AUTH is
Now I can appreciate all the comments, they are not answering my questions.
Is there a preferred way to set up exim securely? I am a relative novice and
have been administering and hand me down system. I would like some advice on
setting up a new system or at the very least reconfiguring my
Nigel Wade wrote:
Of course. Look at server_advertise_condition
Ah, I see. I can use this condition to ensure that AUTH is only
advertised if the connection is encrypted? Is that correct?
That's what the spec says, yes.
The most simple form is:
server_advertise_condition = ${if
Tony Heal wrote:
Now I can appreciate all the comments, they are not answering my questions.
Is there a preferred way to set up exim securely? I am a relative novice and
have been administering and hand me down system. I would like some advice on
setting up a new system or at the very least
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:28:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:57:25 +0200, John Oxley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How do I implement a relay_from_domains that works exactly like
relay_from_hosts just on domains. I want to do this so my clients can
only send mail from their
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Tony Heal wrote:
Now I can appreciate all the comments, they are not answering my questions.
Is there a preferred way to set up exim securely?
Yes. Configure TLS as described in chapter 38 of the spec, and configure
authentication as described in chapter 33. You will need
OK, lets try this.
I would like to remove the dependency of my Windows domain controller from
the system for authentication. Is there a preferred way to set up
authentication (preferably for both smtp and pop/imap) that will allow users
to change their own password without having to ssh into the
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, xyon wrote:
If you are very serious about Outlook integration, why not try Scalix?
http://www.scalix.com
Not a bad idea.
But I do have to agree with Peter, going FROM exim TO exchange is like
going from flying across the Atlantic to rowing a boat across.
I strongly
--On 19 January 2006 16:58:52 + Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need migrate a Exim server to a MS Exchange Server.
Great, another idiot.
I have today +3000 mailboxes in Exim server, and if I migrate de users
connecting MS outlook by POP in Exim server and store de messages in
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:55, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Chris Knadle wrote:
Well, I just became a backup MX for an admin that is using Postfix
that is making extensive use of these addresses with wildcards after the
local_part.
Do you mean something like
On Thursday 19 January 2006 15:18, Christian Schmidt wrote:
Eduardo Gargiulo, 17.01.2006 (d.m.y):
I'm looking for a working schema to integrate exim4 with LDAP; I'd like
to hearing (reading) from the list some experiences using that
configuration (exim4+OpenLDAP). Any hint would be
On 19/01/06, Ian Eiloart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FFS, Peter, what are you thinking of?
As per my posting above, this was a forgery.
Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +44 1296 768003
VoIP: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
VoIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FWD: **275*5048707000
VoipTalk:
On 19 Jan 2006, at 20:21, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:55, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Chris Knadle wrote:
Well, I just became a backup MX for an admin that is using
Postfix
that is making extensive use of these addresses with wildcards
after the
On 19/01/06, Bill Hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Bowyer wrote:
On 19/01/06, Ian Eiloart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FFS, Peter, what are you thinking of?
As per my posting above, this was a forgery.
Peter
Other clues as well.
Appears to have been created in UTF-8 on
On 1/19/06 11:21 AM, Chris Knadle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:55, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Chris Knadle wrote:
Well, I just became a backup MX for an admin that is using Postfix
that is making extensive use of these addresses with wildcards after
On Thursday 19 January 2006 17:41, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Do you mean something like local_part_suffix?
Unfortunately I'm not sure what you mean, either. ;-)
do you mean you have not taken the time to lookup your-exim-source-
dir/doc/spec.txt?
How smug. ;-)
I looked it up
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:26, John W. Baxter wrote:
I'm not sure recipient callout verification is really appropriate here.
Aside from spammers trying to sneak in (lots of activity), the reason a
message is presented to the backup MX is that the primary MX is
unavailable.
Shucks. Yep
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:55:23PM -0500, Chris Knadle said:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 17:41, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
local_part_suffix = -*
local_part_suffix_optional
will do what you want for determining what a local_part is, then you
can do what lookup you find more suitable to
On Thursday 19 January 2006 17:41, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Then I considered doing email routing with ldap, but that has a
similar problem because the time in which wildcards can be used
is in the address used for the lookup and not a wildcard in an
address that's stored in the
Chris Knadle wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 17:41, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Then I considered doing email routing with ldap, but that has a
similar problem because the time in which wildcards can be used
is in the address used for the lookup and not a wildcard in an
address that's stored
Consolidating two replies here.
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:09, Stephen Gran wrote:
local_part_suffix != local_part_prefix, but both exist.
I believe local_part_prefix is what I mainly need. This plus the example
shown in 46.7 should give me enough information to build a suitable
33 matches
Mail list logo
