okay. I have upgraded my 4.20 on a testmachine to 4.60. So nwildlsearch
works. But a message via other users than the blocked ones that contained
in my blacklist were also blocked. Any mail I sent to the host, from
different
users were blocked.
My exim.conf-entry looks like:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Peter Velan wrote:
Messages supplied during the testing session are discarded, and nothing
is written to any of the real log files.
Is there a possibility to retain a copy of the processed message in a
file for later inspection?
No.
Background: I want to take a look
This looks quite messed up with all the dirs world writable.
Somethings is going to go wrong :) Probably you should explain a little
bit more.
so still have the problem :(
in the panic log ist this:
2006-03-30 10:31:31 1FOsYx-00063x-NE unable to set gid=99 or uid=99
(euid=106): local
On Thursday 30 March 2006 11:52, Markus Braun wrote:
This looks quite messed up with all the dirs world writable.
Somethings is going to go wrong :) Probably you should explain a little
bit more.
so still have the problem :(
in the panic log ist this:
2006-03-30 10:31:31
am 2006-03-30 10:19 schrieb Philip Hazel:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Peter Velan wrote:
Messages supplied during the testing session are discarded, and nothing
is written to any of the real log files.
Is there a possibility to retain a copy of the processed message in a
file for later
What are the permissions on the exim binary?
drwxrwxrwx 9 rootroot 1024 2005-11-11 20:34 conf.d
-rw-r--r-- 1 rootroot39447 2005-12-13 21:55 exim4.conf
-rwxrwxrwx 1 rootroot62255 2005-05-27 10:10
exim4.conf.template
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root
On routers try...
==
send_to_exchange2003:
driver = manualroute
domains = yourdomainhere
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = * yourexchangeIPaddresshere
===
thanks
- Original Message -
From: Remco Zwaan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: exim-users@exim.org
On Thursday 30 March 2006 12:43, Markus Braun wrote:
What are the permissions on the exim binary?
snip
Those are the permissions on the exim configuration files. I meant the
permissions on /usr/bin/exim4 or /usr/local/bin/exim4 or wherever Debian puts
the exim binary.
I'm not sure typing
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 09:43:10AM +, Markus Braun wrote:
[ someone asked:]
What are the permissions on the exim binary?
[stuff]
That wasn't an answer to that question. I'll reask it for them. What are
the permissions on the exim *BINARY*, that is, the actual exim program.
(It'll probably be
Hi !!
I have a problem where a domain has some dns problems and it's
on a host list like this:
hosts = +ignore_unknown : *.$sender_address_domain :\
$sender_address_domain : ${lookup dnsdb{:\
defer_never,mxh=$sender_address_domain}}
looks like some problem trying to resolve the
Hi all,
I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
some of you may genuinely find this useful.
It poses some interesting questions about joe-job bounce messages and
their potential misuse to evade _some_ types of spam filters.
The article is here:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, David Saez Padros wrote:
looks like some problem trying to resolve the hostname cioce.com
causes the whole acl check to defer with a 451 Temporary local problem
I suposed that the +ignore_unknown option will also make any lookup
defer to ignore the list item and proceed
Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
During these tests I have run exim in foreground (exim4 -d -bd) and I
have observed a long delay in the smtp transaction between the moment
when exim says doing ident callback and when things start to move
again. Is this normal? My exim4.conf is still available at
(It'll probably be something like /usr/sbin/exim4 on Debian)?
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 784152 2005-05-27 10:10 exim4
But it worked last week. And one day later, it didnt work.
:(
_
Sie suchen E-Mails, Dokumente oder Fotos? Die
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Markus Braun wrote:
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 784152 2005-05-27 10:10 exim4
But it worked last week. And one day later, it didnt work.
Did someone do chmod -R 777 / on your system?!
Tony.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
Hi !!
looks like some problem trying to resolve the hostname cioce.com
causes the whole acl check to defer with a 451 Temporary local problem
I suposed that the +ignore_unknown option will also make any lookup
defer to ignore the list item and proceed with the following one,
but the only way to
Jason Meers wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
some of you may genuinely find this useful.
It poses some interesting questions about joe-job bounce messages and
their potential misuse to evade _some_ types of spam filters.
The article is
Did someone do chmod -R 777 / on your system?!
not really tony, so what are the chmods in this dir:
/usr/sbin ?
Are they all wrong?
What is the correct chmod for the exim4 binary?
_
Sie suchen E-Mails, Dokumente oder Fotos?
On 30/03/06, Jason Meers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
some of you may genuinely find this useful.
It poses some interesting questions about joe-job bounce messages and
their potential misuse to evade _some_ types of
Adam Funk wrote:
But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
Which in turn is why MTA(n-1) should be doing recipient-verify callouts.
-Jeremy
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
reject
a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It would not accept it and
then
generate a bounce
That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
reject
a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It would not accept it and
then
generate a bounce message.
If the mail admins. of these respectable companies actually knew what they
were doing, their
Before anything else, thanks to the exim authors for all their hard
work.
We had a problem yesterday when a disk failed and exim started rejecting
all mail with a Do not retry (5xx) error code. The text indicated a
no such user error. This stopped our upstream relay from trying our
alternate
Hi
I would ask you about you opinion about a new feature request:
I would like to do the following:
warn host = a.b.c.d
set authenticed = test
So that remote hosts can be authenticated directly.
I know, I can do all this using $ack_cX, but I have a lot of rules, all of
them using
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
reject
a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
reject
a
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Steffen Heil wrote:
I would like to do the following:
warn host = a.b.c.d
set authenticed = test
So that remote hosts can be authenticated directly.
What I use in this situation is the SASL EXTERNAL mechanism. This is
designed for lifting some lower-level
On Thursday 30 March 2006 16:39, Markus Braun wrote:
(It'll probably be something like /usr/sbin/exim4 on Debian)?
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 784152 2005-05-27 10:10 exim4
It should be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well chmod go-w,u+s
exim4 or something similar.
But it worked last
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
MTA(n-1) shouldn't accept messages to invalid recipients in the first
place. If it has no direct knowledge of valid recipients, it
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Adam Funk wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use DNS MX to pick MTA(n) for
non-local recipients.
It's also worth
--On 30 March 2006 16:16:09 +0100 Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA
--On 30 March 2006 16:49:11 +0100 Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use DNS MX to pick MTA(n) for
non-local
--On 30 March 2006 15:15:47 +0100 Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/03/06, Jason Meers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
some of you may genuinely find this useful.
It poses some interesting questions about
Hi
What I use in this situation is the SASL EXTERNAL mechanism.
This is designed for lifting some lower-level authentication
(such as IPSEC or
TLS) to the SASL level, but there's no reason that you can't
consider TCP connections from a known client to be good
enough authentication in
Quoting Steffen Heil:
I know, I can do all this using $ack_cX, but I have a lot of rules, all of
is it really so hard?
set a macro, e.g. ACL_AUTHENTICATED = acl_c99
In some acl (e.g. mail from, that's usually the first one used after
authentication):
warn
authenticated = *
set
Hello to everyone,
I have exim installed on windows to learn it before I have to run it
under linux (don't yet have an access to a linux box to learn there).
And hence my request for suggestions.
What is the advisable way of keeping mail users? I see from the list
that some people use user
If you have enough memory in the computer have a look at the free (free
as in beer) VMWare server at www.vmware.com , that will allow you to
install a Unix-like distribution on top of windows, then everybody
here will be better able to help you.
If you pick a Red Hat, Fedora, Debian or Ubuntu I
On Thursday 30 March 2006 20:55, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello to everyone,
I have exim installed on windows to learn it before I have to run it
under linux (don't yet have an access to a linux box to learn there).
It would be helpful if you told us *how* you installed exim under windows -
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
MTA(n-1) shouldn't accept messages to invalid recipients in the first
place.
be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well chmod go-w,u+s
exim4 or something similar.
hi patrick,
i have changed it.
is there a history somewhere?
in some log file?
i also think that nobody as hack my pc.
But this can the problem be with the rights of the exim binarie?
It should be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well chmod go-w,u+s
exim4 or something similar.
so i think it runs.
no error message in the paniclog yet.
but when i try to send the emails which are in the pipe line:
exim4 -qff
i get some errors like this:
1FO82r-0006xx-LX User 0 set
I have a filter (external program) that accepts a message on stdin, adds
some headers and produces the modified message on stdout (similar to the
way SpamAssassin works). Currently I have a transport filter set up to
handle this like:
iceni_transport:
driver = pipe
batch_max = 1000
On 30/03/06, Markus Braun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be something like rwsr-xr-x so you could as well chmod go-w,u+s
exim4 or something similar.
so i think it runs.
no error message in the paniclog yet.
but when i try to send the emails which are in the pipe line:
exim4 -qff
i
You really have broken it in a bad way, haven't you? I'm wondering if
you'd be quicker re-installing the OS.
and any other idea?
an easier way?
Has somebody debian sarge, so that he can paste it here, that i can make a
comparison
On 30/03/06, Markus Braun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really have broken it in a bad way, haven't you? I'm wondering if
you'd be quicker re-installing the OS.
and any other idea?
It was a serious suggestion.
an easier way?
You could post every single incident of bad permissions on the
1FO82r-0006xx-LX User 0 set for local_delivery transport is on the
never_users list
User 0 is always on the never users list, its hard-coded into most exim
binaries. User 0 is root and becoming root to perform local deliveries
is a security risk.
try adding another user, for example:
Has somebody debian sarge, so that he can paste it here, that i can make
a
comparison
all what is in the /usr/sbin.. is.
all files and folders...
in the shell with the command ls and i look.
yes some people have other packages, but the urgent packages i think has
everybody.
Hello again,
Patrick Okui said the following:
On Thursday 30 March 2006 20:55, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello to everyone,
I have exim installed on windows to learn it before I have to run it
under linux (don't yet have an access to a linux box to learn there).
It would be helpful if
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right, it wouldn't use callouts. But instead, it has a closed
community of known senders for whom it relays, and it can safely
assume that none of them is forging its sender address - so if it gets
a rejection on a relayed message,
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right, it wouldn't use callouts. But instead, it has a closed
community of known senders for whom it relays, and it can safely
assume that none of them is forging its sender address
Hello all, I'm trying to track down a very strange phenomenon regarding my
mail server at one of our NOCs and I'm hoping someone can help. Here's the
setup:
Internet - Firewall/NAT (dallaire) - Mail Server (brazilian)
The firewall has two IP's, the legal, external IP on eth0 and the
51 matches
Mail list logo
