On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:56:37AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday 14 March 2006 04:56, Marc Sherman wrote:
Please see:
http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html
Forwarding's what you do when your admin won't install fetchmail and you have
no other real way to get your remote mail.
Hi guys,
I have a small problem with Exim4 on Debian Sarge (just to define the
setup, it is probably not related to the distribution at all):
One of my users tries to send a mail which gets rejected because of this
(I purposedly changed the names):
A message that you sent could not be delivered
Hi List,
some curious problem, with my vacation .forward exim stuff:
pretty easy (if personal removed) .forward
---
# Exim filter
# Autoresponder
mail
to $reply_address
#to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject Re: ${substr{0}{20}{$header_subject:}}...
file $home/vacation/message
once
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:35:32AM +0100, Jérôme Warnier said:
Hi guys,
I have a small problem with Exim4 on Debian Sarge (just to define the
setup, it is probably not related to the distribution at all):
One of my users tries to send a mail which gets rejected because of this
(I purposedly
Greg Ward wrote:
*trimmed*
So ... why not tunnel SMTP through HTTP? IOW, when we *want* to do
Presuming you, or another staff member on your team have an
American Express, Visa, MC, or online banking or brokerage
account, several https-based examples should already be familiar
to you.
I want to block Mails not by the email-address, but by the name in the field
from: such as Doctor blabla(at)blablabla.net.
So for example any mail that contains doctor in the from-field and with
any
email-address should be rejected.
Is it possible ? And how can I add it to the
Bradley Walker wrote:
(1) × [EMAIL PROTECTED] F= R=spamcheck_director T=spamcheck: Child
process of spamcheck transport returned 2 from command: /usr/sbin/exim
(preceded by transport filter timeout while writing to pipe)
Spamd may eat some gigs(!) of RAM (besides clamad), so the server gets
On 15/03/06, listrcv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bradley Walker wrote:
(1) × [EMAIL PROTECTED] F= R=spamcheck_director T=spamcheck: Child
process of spamcheck transport returned 2 from command: /usr/sbin/exim
(preceded by transport filter timeout while writing to pipe)
Spamd may eat some
Hello All.
I hope someone has an answer to my problem. I'm running MailScanner, Exim,
MySQL, Courier-IMAP. The MailScanner is located at a different server
while both EXIM/IMAP on another. One of our virtual email customers
doesn't want to receive emails from an address on another domain that we
I need to use match_ip to search ips of interfaces.
In example:
srs_condition = ${if match_ip {$interface_address} {\
${lookup dnsdb{: defer_never,a=\
${lookup dnsdb{:
defer_never,mxh=$domain}{$value}{}}\
Hi!
I have a problem with duplicate messages delivered by exim if a
message was sent to user and to alias in which the user included.
Here's an example. I have a line in aliases:
noc: ..., tiger, ...
and mail sent to tiger and noc, tiger have two copies of the message:
Feb 24 10:16:55 hamster
On 15/03/06, Silmar A. Marca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to use match_ip to search ips of interfaces.
In example:
srs_condition = ${if match_ip {$interface_address} {\
${lookup dnsdb{: defer_never,a=\
${lookup
Here's an example of running a shell script from a condition statement:
warncondition = ${run{/sbin/putNfile /etc/mail/whitelist.0
$sender_host_address}{yes}{yes}}
log_message = Whitelisting Host
In this case, the script putNfile get's two parameters, the filename and
the
Le mercredi 15 mars 2006 à 10:51 +, Stephen Gran a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:35:32AM +0100, Jérôme Warnier said:
Hi guys,
I have a small problem with Exim4 on Debian Sarge (just to define the
setup, it is probably not related to the distribution at all):
One of my users
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Pavel Gulchouck wrote:
Why exim does not inhibit duplicate messages delivering?
It does under normal circumstances. Try a delivery using -d to see what
the debugging tells you.
In the procmail case, assuming you are routing both addresses to a pipe
transport, from
Peter Bowyer wrote:
This will only help the OP if he moves away from his current
router/transport/spamc mechanism and starts to use the built-in
content scanning facilities.
Oh, sorry, that's true.
Well, then I recommend switching to the built-in scanning facilities first.
If that is out of
On Tue Mar 14 2006 at 23:59:50 CET, Tony Finch wrote:
I'd suggest configuring Exim on the crippled hosts to deliver BSMTP into a
pipe which POSTs to the appropriate CGI on the web server. The CGI can
then pipe the BSMTP straight into Exim. This should require almost no new
code.
That is what
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 02:12:58PM +, Philip Hazel writes:
Why exim does not inhibit duplicate messages delivering?
PH It does under normal circumstances. Try a delivery using -d to see what
PH the debugging tells you.
PH In the procmail case, assuming you are routing both addresses to a
I want to block Mails not by the email-address, but by the name in the field
from: such as Doctor blabla(at)blablabla.net.
So for example any mail that contains doctor in the from-field and with
any
email-address should be rejected.
Is it possible ? And how can I add it to the
am 2006-03-15 17:43 schrieb Jens Strohschnitter:
I want to block Mails not by the email-address, but by the name in the
field
from: such as Doctor blabla(at)blablabla.net.
So for example any mail that contains doctor in the from-field and with
any
email-address should be rejected.
On 15 Mar 2006, at 13:58, Silmar A. Marca wrote:
I need to use match_ip to search ips of interfaces.
In example:
srs_condition = ${if match_ip {$interface_address} {\
${lookup dnsdb{: defer_never,a=\
${lookup dnsdb{:
I have a requirement to deliver incoming mail for users into mailboxes
located on two different machines, resulting in a message for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] having to be delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any ideas how to best accomplish this with Exim ? Would an 'unseen'
router
Jan-Piet Mens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a requirement to deliver incoming mail for users into mailboxes
located on two different machines, resulting in a message for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] having to be delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any ideas how to best
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:31 , Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Greg Ward wrote:
Trouble is, the central support server (host of the mythical CGI) is
almost certainly running sendmail. Not sure how much of a political
battle it would be to install a non-sucking MTA. Is
I tried to send an e-mail to a specified address. The e-mail was not received because the attachment was too big. However, I did not
get any notification that the delivery had failed. The SMTP server that I used to transfer the e-mail was exim 4.60. Here's the
relevant part of the main log file:
Hey all,
I have a really weird issue that just started happening yesterday morning.
This issue happened as I was working on troubleshooting SpamAssassin and
Exim. The issue itself has nothing to do with SpamAssassin. Rather all of
a sudden I started getting swamped with telephone calls that
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:27:49PM +0200, Angel Tsankov said:
I tried to send an e-mail to a specified address. The e-mail was not
received because the attachment was too big. However, I did not get any
notification that the delivery had failed. The SMTP server that I used to
transfer the
Stephen Gran wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:27:49PM +0200, Angel Tsankov said:
I tried to send an e-mail to a specified address. The e-mail was not
received because the attachment was too big. However, I did not get any
notification that the delivery had failed. The SMTP server that I used
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:02:41AM +0200, Angel Tsankov said:
Stephen Gran wrote:
I am not sure how one could know, given the amount of information
presented, but I don't believe that's the problem. Did the second MTA
get a 5xx at delivery time?
I think the second MTA got this:
Bradley Walker wrote:
- In regards to the rulesets, this is where I'm quite a bit unfamiliar about
what truly is best. On one side I've been taught that the more stringent
If you have a default install of SA, you use the default rulesets, which
is ok I'd say (at least I am happy with them).
Jeff Lasman wrote:
That said, what I read seems to have boiled down to don't use spamd;
instead use SA-SpamAssassin.
I don't know what SA-SpamAssassin is, but using spamd is the most
efficient way of using SA (if one can use efficient and SA in the
same sentence at all). Recent versions of
Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
Any ideas how to best accomplish this with Exim ? Would an 'unseen'
router help me further?
Yes, if you want to preserve the envelope recipient. If not, redirect is
probably better:
spread:
driver = redirect
domains = +local_domains
data = ${quote_local_part:[EMAIL
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 03:12 pm, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Jeff Lasman wrote:
That said, what I read seems to have boiled down to don't use
spamd; instead use SA-SpamAssassin.
I don't know what SA-SpamAssassin is
Brain fart ... I mean SA-Exim.
Sorry. Thanks for bringing that to my
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 05:08 pm, I wrote:
Brain fart ... I mean SA-Exim.
Sorry. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
I just wanted to add that I thought SA-Exim ran instead of spamd.
I'll keep working smile.
Thanks.
Jeff
--
Jeff Lasman, Nobaloney Internet Services
1254 So
It seems there is a pattern with some of the emails that are getting frozen.
One client has an daily 'inspirational' legitimate solicited email that she
likes to get, which is one of the first ones to get frozen. The vast
majority of the frozen messages are spam (I verify that by viewing their
On 3/13/06 7:04 AM, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13/03/06, Thad Bryson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the contents of /etc/vfilters/velocenet.com:
snip
or $message_body contains cum
...
or $message_headers contains sex
Have a think for a moment, how many legitimate
Stephen Gran wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:02:41AM +0200, Angel Tsankov said:
Stephen Gran wrote:
I am not sure how one could know, given the amount of information
presented, but I don't believe that's the problem. Did the second MTA
get a 5xx at delivery time?
I think the second MTA got
On 16/03/06, John W. Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/13/06 7:04 AM, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13/03/06, Thad Bryson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the contents of /etc/vfilters/velocenet.com:
snip
or $message_body contains cum
...
or $message_headers
38 matches
Mail list logo
