On 6 Feb 2006, at 13:34, Philip Hazel wrote:
The reason for the existence of dns_check_names_pattern is that some
resolvers give (gave?) temporary errors instead of no such record
when
presented with a name containing strange characters. There shouldn't
actually be a need for
Cancel that, solution is in the list expected.
I assumed since the file I was supplying was newline seperated that I
wanted that as well, after reading another post regarding mailing lists
I found a result transform:
senders = ${sg {${lookup
On 6 Feb 2006, at 14:24, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Atch, I though I would test this against microsoft so I typed:
dig p/d.microstoft.com
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;p/d.microstoft.com.IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
p/d.microstoft.com. 3600IN A 64.49.213.238
what the...?
Philip Hazel wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Kenevel wrote:
Following on from this, surely the VERP section in the documentation needs
revisiting if setting return_path is redundant?
I have not followed the details of this thread, but, for a message
delivered over SMTP, you can change the
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Bill Hacker wrote:
Hmmm how about web-alizing those 'as is' in one iFrame,
and putting the old-style 'topic/ alphabetical director' index in the a side
bar in another frame? Created by an external process?
I'm sure that Nigel, who was hoping to think more about the
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Marc Sherman wrote:
I thought your approach was to use sender rewriting in submission mode?
Isn't that why you implemented it? Or do you only use it in certain
situations?
We do that too. The logic is that we use the anti-forgery check to slap
people who are playing
I have my acl defined to accept from authenticated connections but i
want to make some basic filtering for
- Forwards can be only configured to send to local domains
Example: local_domains: example.com
My users can set up forwards but the destination of the forwarded
email can be only on
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, alexis wrote:
- Forwards can be only configured to send to local domains
My users can set up forwards but the destination of the forwarded
email can be only on example.com
That's something you should probably configure in your system for
configuring forwarding. If your
On 2/6/06, Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, alexis wrote:
- Forwards can be only configured to send to local domains
My users can set up forwards but the destination of the forwarded
email can be only on example.com
That's something you should probably configure
Here are the symptoms:
The server is running cPanel. All domains except the first domain can send and
receive mail. The first domain can receive mail, but not send mail.
I can log into the user's POP3 account using telnet to port 25, then try to send
mail through the SMTP port, but as soon as I
On 06/02/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I'm wondering if anyone knows how to check smtp authorization from telnet?
You need John Jetmore's 'swaks' tool -
http://www.jetmore.org/john/code/#swaks
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +44 1296 768003
VoIP: sip:[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
550-hostname.domain.name (localhost) [xx.xx.xx.xx] is currently not permitted
550-to relay through this server. Perhaps you have not logged into the
pop/imap
550-server in the last 30 minutes or do not have SMTP Authentication turned on
550 in your email client.
Because it just came up (and I may write some code and a patch, but I
don't have time just at the moment), a feature suggestion is to be able
to filter on number of recipients per queue entry, possibly both more than
and less than.
What do people think?
Cheers
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:41:38AM -0600, John Jetmore wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
Because it just came up (and I may write some code and a patch, but I
don't have time just at the moment), a feature suggestion is to be able
to filter on number of recipients per
--On 6 February 2006 18:54:38 +0200 Michael Ben-Nes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I want exim to discard the message and not forward it to my account.
I still don't understand the problem. Are you saying that exim
forwards all undeliverable messages to you? Or are you saying that
when
great, thanks a lot.
btw the other control worked just fine.
On 2/6/06, Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, alexis wrote:
actually, i forgot to mention this, im configuring the forwards on a
mysql table.
In that case the best place to implement this check is in the
Is there a way to limit the rate of which Exim sends mail to each domain
name?
I run a service where my users can sign up to receive an email alert when
something matches their personal criteria. It's not spam, it really is a
valid service that my users pay me an annual fee to opt-in to the
Ian Eiloart wrote:
You should reject it. That way senders of legitimate email will be notified
(if their mail system works properly), but spam won't cause bounce messages
to be sent to innocent third parties.
This is the behaviour of the default exim4 configuration. If you're
getting
Hi,
in my acl_smtp_data ACL I have this rule:
warnmessage = X-Spam-Flag: YES
condition = ${if {$message_size}{80k}{1}{0}}
spam = nobody
condition = ${if {$spam_score_int}{${lookup pgsql { SELECT * FROM
flagSpam('${quote_pgsql:[EMAIL
On Sunday 05 February 2006 21:38, Marc Sherman wrote:
Leonardo Boselli wrote:
Il 5 Feb 2006 alle 16:21 Marc Sherman immise in rete
Many servers will simply drop your traffic silently, or quarantine
it.
I think this would break the rules ... one is free to not accept a
message, but
That's because a message may have more than one recipient, so there is no
single appropriate value for $local_part or $domain for ACLs that deal
with the message as a whole (i.e. anything except the RCPT ACL).
Tony.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
Adam Funk wrote:
I take your point, but I do think there is a bit of hypocrisy floating
around here on this issue: people condemn what Daevid and I want as
*wrong* -- even though I genuinely don't think it violates the RFC -- but
condone (at least tacitly) violations on the receiving end.
On Monday 06 February 2006 10:52, Philip Hazel wrote:
This WishList suggestion is impossible to implement. Control cannot be
given back to the routers after Exim has entered the transport phase.
Remember: all the routing happens before any of the transporting.
Fallback hosts would be the only
That's because a message may have more than one recipient, so there is no
single appropriate value for $local_part or $domain for ACLs that deal
with the message as a whole (i.e. anything except the RCPT ACL).
Tony.
Is there a way to use it at least for messages
On Monday 06 February 2006 19:47, Adrian wrote:
Is there a way to use it at least for messages with only a single
recipient? Or how else can I allow users to use custom spam thresholds
(I have a database table which contains the user who owns an email
address and a table where the spam
Hi all
I have exim as a front-end server and exchange 2003 sp2 as a backend system.
Not sure if SP2 is related - but I am getting problems sending email to certain
recipients. I have tried telneting to the mail server in question and it
accept verification if I use an email address that the
Marc wrote:
You've already been told about swaks. However, if you do post here
again in the future, please do not obfuscate:
http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/MailingListEtiquette#head-a6f7fb5ce8816568569a321f783315207ec38063
Thank you for the link. However, I'm doing tech support for a server
Adam Funk wrote:
I take your point, but I do think there is a bit of hypocrisy floating
around here on this issue: people condemn what Daevid and I want as
*wrong* -- even though I genuinely don't think it violates the RFC -- but
condone (at least tacitly) violations on the receiving end.
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 02:37:21PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Marc wrote:
With the other MTA's I test, I can emulate the account I'm mailing from and
see
the results in gory detail. I haven't found a way to do that yet using exim,
so
I thought I'd ask here since this group seems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
terminal window. Although I've telnetted to port 25 thousands of times on
thousands of servers, I've seldom run across a session that didn't let me send
mail outside the domain after authenticating with POP3.
You can have that with Exim, too, but I'd rather not
Karl,
The reason that only '=' lines are counted as each one of these
represent a message sent down a transport and significant work done.
Each '-' line is an additional address at the same destination
which does not require a new message to be sent and is not a
significant amount of work.
31 matches
Mail list logo
