Hi all
Yesterday someone sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my domain), and now Im
seeing this
2006-02-08 07:32:34 1F6SuX-0002gj-Ph == [EMAIL PROTECTED] R=userforward defer (-1): failed
to stat /var/spool/uucp/. (No such file or directory)
Did a check on my /etc/passwd file
mail:~# cat
According to Brent Clark,
Hi all
Yesterday someone sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my domain), and now
Im seeing this
2006-02-08 07:32:34 1F6SuX-0002gj-Ph == [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R=userforward defer (-1): failed to stat /var/spool/uucp/. (No such file or
directory)
Did a check on
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:50:00AM +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
Dean Brooks wrote:
Bill Hacker wrote:
'Legacy', perhaps, but not 'non-standard' w/r our use of
those two ports.
Using it on 587 is non-standard
The IANA registration has not specified port 587 for any
particular protocol, smtp or
Brent Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mi 08 Feb 2006 09:19:03 CET):
Hi all
Yesterday someone sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my domain), and now
Im seeing this
2006-02-08 07:32:34 1F6SuX-0002gj-Ph == [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R=userforward defer (-1): failed to stat /var/spool/uucp/. (No such file
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:19:03AM +0200, Brent Clark wrote:
Hi all
Yesterday someone sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my domain), and now
Im seeing this
2006-02-08 07:32:34 1F6SuX-0002gj-Ph == [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R=userforward defer (-1): failed to stat /var/spool/uucp/. (No such file
Preliminary Announcement:
We will be running another Exim course this year, on 18-21 July 2006, in
Robinson College, Cambridge, UK. Please note however that some details
are yet to be finalised, in particular the programme and costs. (The web
pages have been minimally hacked but still give last
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:50:00AM +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
*SNIP*
I know, let's all advocate overriding sane client defaults in everything
we reply to. I mean, that wouldn't be confusing for new posters or people
asking questions, would it?
Given that most
Has anyone written anything which will do CallerID with exim? (even external
program)
Thanks
Craig
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
I would just like to say thank you to you all for helping me get my emails
back on track it must have helped as the people that were not receiving them
are now Thank you very much
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: exim-users@exim.org
To: exim-users@exim.org
Subject: Exim-users Digest, Vol
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Christian Recktenwald said:
as there are some more system accounts one presumably do not want to
receive mail for from remote I'd like to suggest the following:
[ good idea snipped ]
My idea is that the simplicity should probably rule here. These
Just did the same !
Thanks for that. I'll check my ClamAV config file and make sure its not
doing something silly.
I've upgraded the server to V4.54 of Exim, 0.88 of ClamAV and 3.1.0 of
SpamAssassin now, though it made no difference until I rebooted the server,
and then it all seemed to work
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:41:55AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
clamav: :fail: No mail to system accounts
To make it both clear and simple what you want?
this inhibits reception of even locally submitted mail - which is
not, what I intended. if some system process wants to
Stian Jordet wrote:
The server uses fetchmail and gotmail to receive mail from other
pop3/imap servers and hotmail. This works fine, but I'd like to check
the mails for spam. I do this in the notsmtp acl. This also works fine.
Here's what I use. fetchmail is only run as an unprivileged user
This is better continued on the list. I am directing my reply there.
If this was in some way private, I apologize - I can't think why it
would be, however.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 06:03:21PM +0800, Bill Hacker said:
Seems equally harmless to simply delete them from /etc/aliases
entirely.
Er,
Stephen Gran wrote:
This is better continued on the list. I am directing my reply there.
If this was in some way private, I apologize - I can't think why it
would be, however.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 06:03:21PM +0800, Bill Hacker said:
Seems equally harmless to simply delete them from
Hi Everybody ,
My spam check condition like below , but I saw that more then
300K files are passing and checked from spamassassin. I'm controling spamd
log !
Wed Feb 8 13:57:26 2006 [2418] info: spamd: clean message (1.8/7.0) for
nobody:0 in 1.2 seconds, 890167 bytes.
Wed Feb 8
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
warnspam = nobody:true
condition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
should be
warncondition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
spam = nobody:true
order matters for conditional keywords.
--
## List details at
I made it like this but nothing changed
condition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
warnspam = nobody:true
# condition = ${if {$message_size}{1M}}
# condition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
message = X-Spam_score: $spam_score\n\
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 14:24 +0200, Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
I made it like this but nothing changed
Ah - no - warn is the verb, it must come first. What you have done is
moved the condition to the previous ACL
Change it to:-
warncondition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
spam
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
I made it like this but nothing changed
condition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
warnspam = nobody:true
# condition = ${if {$message_size}{1M}}
# condition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
message = X-Spam_score:
Okey Thanks Nigel and Jakob , :)
I made it like this
warncondition = ${if {$message_size}{300K}}
spam = nobody:true
# warnspam = nobody:true
message = X-Spam_score: $spam_score\n\
X-Spam_score_int: $spam_score_int\n\
Hi ,
Okey I changed but same thing happened ..
Also I don't understand why I have to put additional acl because
exim must be past if condition fail! İsn't it
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W B Hacker
Sent: Wednesday,
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
Now still some messages are passing !
Yes - anything over 300K will do.
Do you want to reject them unscanned or pass them unscanned?
DoS / mailbomb attacks aside, most WinCrobes are seldom large,
simply 'coz it takes the zombie-farmers too log to hit as many
I want to scan mails for spam if their size is under 300K ,
İf mail size pass 300K I will not send mail and normal process will be ..
( I don't want to reject something !!! ) :)
Thanks
Vahric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of W B
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
I don't want to make spam test if it's more then 300K
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.60/doc/html/spec.html/ch40.html#SECTscanspam
ass
deny message = This message was classified as SPAM
condition = ${if {$message_size}{10K}}
spam = nobody
I red this line
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
I want to scan mails for spam if their size is under 300K ,
İf mail size pass 300K I will not send mail and normal process will be ..
( I don't want to reject something !!! ) :)
You mean scan the small ones and drop the big ones on the floor?
The 'discard' verb is
On 8 Feb 2006, at 03:50, W B Hacker wrote:
urd465/tcpURL Rendesvous Directory for SSM
do they mean rendezvous? (and shouldn't it be bonjour anyway?)
g
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use
Brent Clark wrote:
mail:~# cat /etc/passwd | grep -i uucp
uucp:x:10:10:uucp:/var/spool/uucp:/bin/sh mail:~#
So my question is, for the Debian distobution, would it be safe to
delete this user, or would anyone have another solution to this
problem.
Debian-specific questions should be
Anne Clarke wrote:
I would just like to say thank you to you all for helping me get my emails
back on track it must have helped as the people that were not receiving them
are now Thank you very much
Anne, please trim your quotes, and don't top-post, _especially_ if
you're subscribed to the
Hmm, ok, thanks for that, gives me more to ponder on. I think where SA is
concerned I've currently got it working with the default number of child
processes, same goes for ClamAV.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Hall
Sent: 08
Debian Sarge box, exim 4.50
/etc/exim4/exim4.conf
-
acl_check_rcpt:
[...]
deny message = Access denied
log_message = Blacklisted sender
senders = ! CONFDIR/whitelisted-senders : \
CONFDIR/blacklisted-senders
John Hall wrote:
Be careful how you interpret these figures - Linux will use any spare
RAM as file cache, so the amount of free memory is misleading. If
apps need more RAM then the file caches are given up.
Yesterdays slashdot.org had an article on Linux memory usage, worth reading.
--
##
On 2/8/06, Derrick MacPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running Exim 4.52 with SA 3.1 and Clamav 0.87 on a machine with
only 256MB RAM quite happily, albeit with some careful limitations on
the number of SA child processes.
would you share with me on what your settings are? Thanks.
On 2/8/06 2:59 AM, John Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be careful how you interpret these figures - Linux will use any spare
RAM as file cache, so the amount of free memory is misleading. If
apps need more RAM then the file caches are given up.
procinfo -r
or
free
will show how much file
I have tried to install exim + mysql
The compilation is succesful, but I cannot run exim as deamon.
When I test something like:
# exim -d
Exim version 4.44 uid=0 gid=0 pid=3959 D=fbb95cfd
Berkeley DB: Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.2.52: (February 22, 2005)
Support for: iconv() Perl OpenSSL
Hi Brent,
Brent Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
Yesterday someone sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my domain), and now Im
seeing this
2006-02-08 07:32:34 1F6SuX-0002gj-Ph == [EMAIL PROTECTED] R=userforward defer
(-1): failed
to stat /var/spool/uucp/. (No such file or
That's great, thanks for the help with this, that's all going to be useful.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John W. Baxter
Sent: 08 February 2006 15:44
To: exim-users@exim.org
Subject: Re: [exim] Exim has stopped sending email
On
Joerg Sommer wrote:
Do you know why exim wants to access the home dir? Does it search a
forward file there? For me, it looks like a bug that the forward router
fails if the home directory is missing.
Regards, Jörg.
Hi Jörg
I think you may be on to something there.
I have copied and pasted
I do not have this option set in my configure file,
and it was my understanding that unset meant unlimited.
However I just had a message bounce 552 message size exceeds maximum permitted
SIZE=52571183
yes, it was huge, but I don't have this set? The docs indicate default is zero
(unlimited) but
It is possible to do callouts selectively? I mean, do recipient
verification callouts only for certain recipient domains.
Regards,
maykel
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list -
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 12:35, Jim Pazarena wrote:
I do not have this option set in my configure file,
and it was my understanding that unset meant unlimited.
However I just had a message bounce 552 message size exceeds maximum
permitted SIZE=52571183
yes, it was huge, but I don't
Jim Pazarena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not have this option set in my configure file,
and it was my understanding that unset meant unlimited.
[...]
yes, it was huge, but I don't have this set? The docs indicate
default is zero (unlimited) but the above suggests otherwise. Am I
missing
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 14:15, Jim Pazarena wrote:
Oh my.
I looked in the ChangeLogs and NewLogs and did not find this.
The book indicates zero as default.
Out of curiosity, which book are you referring to? The reason I ask is
that the Oreilly book [which does say that the default
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 09:51, Maykel Moya wrote:
CONFDIR/whitelisted-senders
---
[...]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had a similar problem recently, which Jakob Hirsch answered in this post:
http://www.exim.org/mail-archives/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-20060116/msg00216.html
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 12:44, Maykel Moya wrote:
It is possible to do callouts selectively? I mean, do recipient
verification callouts only for certain recipient domains.
I think all you need is something similar to this in the rcpt ACL:
deny
domains =
Hello, all
I've been using exim for several years now and I'm quite satisfied by
it, since it can pretty much handle any smtp related task I've had
need of.
Recently, tho, I was asked to provide secondary MX for another mail
server that runs Postfix. This server is completely out of my
control.
Does Exim have some kind of a graceful restart option so that I could
change the config files without killing all the current processes? If it
doesn't have this I'd like to suggest it. HTTPD has it and it's nice.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim
Hi,
I have scanned thru the docs but could not locate the variable that controls
how long exim waits before answering port 25.
IE: telnet 192.168.1.12 25
30 seconds or so, then I get:
220 serverone ESMTP Exim 4.43 Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:23:34 -0500
Thnx in advance.
--
## List details at
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 20:12, Marc Perkel wrote:
Does Exim have some kind of a graceful restart option so that I could
change the config files without killing all the current processes? If it
doesn't have this I'd like to suggest it. HTTPD has it and it's nice.
Um, what kind of
Chris Knadle wrote:
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 20:12, Marc Perkel wrote:
Does Exim have some kind of a graceful restart option so that I could
change the config files without killing all the current processes? If it
doesn't have this I'd like to suggest it. HTTPD has it and it's nice.
When things go bad good email bounces returning 421 errors. Can that be
changed to a DEFER so that they will resend rather than bounce?
Thanks in advance.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki
On 09/02/06, Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Exim have some kind of a graceful restart option so that I could
change the config files without killing all the current processes? If it
doesn't have this I'd like to suggest it. HTTPD has it and it's nice.
kill -HUP does the same thing
On 08 Feb 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
When things go bad good email bounces returning 421 errors. Can that be
changed to a DEFER so that they will resend rather than bounce?
A 4xx level message should already be interpreted on the
remote end as a deferral. If not, the remote SMTP server
On 09/02/06, Hawk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have scanned thru the docs but could not locate the variable that controls
how long exim waits before answering port 25.
IE: telnet 192.168.1.12 25
30 seconds or so, then I get:
220 serverone ESMTP Exim 4.43 Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:23:34
Is there any reason why I shouldn't use dns block lists in the
acl_smtp_connect?
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
On 09/02/06, John Oxley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any reason why I shouldn't use dns block lists in the
acl_smtp_connect?
The only one commonly voiced is that some spamware doesn't understand
a DENY on connect, and will enter a tight retry loop, using up your
resources and filling up
Peter Bowyer wrote:
On 09/02/06, Hawk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*trim*
2) Unless you have a specific use for it, turn off ident checking with
'rfc_1413_timeout = 0s' in your Exim config. This will stop Exim
trying to do an ident query to the client, which may be dropping ident
traffic at a
57 matches
Mail list logo
