On 2018-08-22, Emanuel Gonzalez via Exim-users wrote:
> 2018-08-22 07:48:12 1fsQgL-000554-6N Entrantes y Salientes autenticados -
> Cuenta_FROM: - X-Mailer = Microsoft Outlook
> Express 6.00.2900.2950 - Subject = \277Eres el del video?
>
> discardcondition = ${if
On 2018-07-07, Phil Pennock via Exim-users wrote:
> On 2018-07-07 at 18:56 +0100, Julian Bradfield via Exim-users wrote:
>> Is there a way to detect, in the Exim configuration file, whether a
>> sender domain has a DMARC record?
> ${lookup dnsdb{txt=_dmarc.$sender_a
Is there a way to detect, in the Exim configuration file, whether a
sender domain has a DMARC record?
As far as Google tells me, the only mention of DMARC in the Exim spec
is the acknowledgement of the OpenDMARC library.
I suppose I should explain the reason, in case there's a better way:
one of
On 2018-11-07, Douglas, Daniel via Exim-users wrote:
> We need to add disclaimers to out email and also use DKIM to sign our
> messages. Each of these things work individually but if they are both
> configured on a transport then the DKIM check fails because the disclaimer is
> added after the
On 2018-11-07, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote:
> Douglas, Daniel via Exim-users (Mi 07 Nov 2018 21:46:38
> CST):
[ snip ]
> You should refuse to use your MTA for message alteration.
This is not a useful comment. Many places are required by law to
ensure that every communication from
On 2018-11-08, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote:
> As I mentioned, I setup Exim *checking* if the disclaimer exists and ask
> users to configure their clients to add the disclaimer. It is IMHO there
> responsibility to add it.
Asking thirty thousand users to individually configure their
I've just had an embarrassing incident where a system upgrade
overwrote a customized greylistd, with the result that mail from new
senders was always deferred because of an invalid condition value, and
I didn't notice for more than a week.
On the whole, I feel that if during processing an ACL
On 2019-07-18, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 18/07/2019 20:03, Julian Bradfield via Exim-users wrote:
>> I've just had an embarrassing incident where a system upgrade
>> overwrote a customized greylistd, with the result that mail from new
>> senders was al
On 2019-07-18, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 18/07/2019 21:00, Julian Bradfield via Exim-users wrote:
>> On 2019-07-18, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2019 20:03, Julian Bradfield via Exim-users wrote:
>>>> I've just had an embarr
On 2019-09-25, Sebastian Nielsen via Exim-users wrote:
> Another way to deal with compromises is to IP-restrict the user accounts so
> they can only login from where they are supposed to login from.
> If ALL of your users "belong" to the same country - for example i fits a
> company-internal
On 2020-07-16, Phillip Carroll via Exim-users wrote:
> However, the DMARC example of 58.5 contains a construct that has me
> totally stumped:
>
> warn !domains = +screwed_up_dmarc_records
>
> In an exhaustive search of the PDF version of the spec, I found exactly
> 98 occurrences of the
I thought it was standard practice in introducing a new feature that
causes major breakage to existing installations, to take a three step
approach. First you provide the feature, and give it an enabling
switch with three levels "off", "warn but don't error", "on".
Then in successive releases you
I'm not sure of how to achieve the following aim.
My setup is that I have two mail servers, call them FIRST and SECOND.
Their exim configurations are almost identical, with one difference
conditioned upon the presence of /etc/exim4/BACKUPMX .
Normally, the MXes are FIRST with priority 10, and
On 2022-01-08, Slavko (tblt) via Exim-users wrote:
>>So I suppose the question is: if I drop the master-source-built binary
>>on top of the Debian one, what can I expect to break?
> AFAIK spfquery is used in debian's exim for years, thus i am confused, why it
> is problem for you right now,
I wonder if any of you have done any analysis of how much spam email
is SPF-valid?
For many years, one of my main spam defences has been a reasonably
aggressive greylisting strategy. This works well at never seeing the
spam from the "fire-and-forget" spambots, but it has the downside of
My mail servers run, and have run for decades, on Debian, and I've
always used the Debian package for exim4, though I don't use debconf
for my own additions, but just edit the conf.template file as if it
were a .conf file.
The pain of dealing with Debian's antiquated versions (4.92) and
On 2022-01-08, Andreas Barth via Exim-users wrote:
> * Julian Bradfield via Exim-users (exim-users@exim.org) [220108 15:18]:
>> The pain of dealing with Debian's antiquated versions (4.92) and
>> gratuitous messing around with upstream's configuration (most recent
>> anno
On 2022-06-25, Randy Bush via Exim-users wrote:
[ who?
>> Please, do not send reply direct to me, one message via ML is
>> enough...
>
> the world needs to modify mua reply behavior because your M*A can't deal
> with dupes?
No, exim-users members should follow what has been standard tech list
On 2022-06-23, The Doctor via Exim-users wrote:
> Is their a way to close off Port 25 unless you are using SSL?
>
> Heads up
>
> The I caught on porn now pay up scandal is back.
Did it ever go away?
> Further this hackers are maurauding mail servers for usernames
> and passwords to relay their
On 2022-07-15, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> My practice, and I think it would help with this sort of
> attacker, is to delay the auth response for a fail.
> By 15 or 20 seconds. Most drop off by about ten, so
How do you do this? Abusing server_condition doesn't work, as it's
only
I should like exim to drop the connection on a client AUTH failure.
(Because as soon it's seen in the log, fail2ban will DROP the client IP,
and so the exim process will hang around until the SMTP session times
out.)
However, I can't see a way to do this. Am I missing something in the
docs?
--
On 2022-07-15, Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 01:54:56PM +0100, Julian Bradfield via Exim-users
> wrote:
>> I should like exim to drop the connection on a client AUTH failure.
>> (Because as soon it's seen in the log, fail2ban will DROP the cl
On 2022-07-15, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> To OP: I will do not suggest to use as aggressive bans at all, as a lot
> of hosts try only once and then go away, thus banning them is only
> resource wasting...
Not my experience. A large number of hosts try every hour or two -
presumably they're
On 2022-07-15, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 14:17, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
>> This will crash that exim process, hence dropping the connection.
> No, I'm mistaken.
> Could you set up your fail2ban to be less aggressive?
Of course I could, but I don't want to!
I've just had a bounce from the MTA running on mx1.solardns.com, which
advertises itself as Exim 20220503.1020
The bounce was:
550 Messages should have one or no Cc headers, not 2
I'd never seen this before, so I went off to check RFC5822, and I see
that in the 5822 version, only one of the
On 2022-05-09, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> Dňa 9. 5. o 10:53 Julian Bradfield via Exim-users napísal(a):
>> I'd never seen this before, so I went off to check RFC5822, and I see
>> that in the 5822 version, only one of the To:, CC: or BCC: headers is
>> allowed to be ge
On 2022-12-20, Johnnie W Adams via Exim-users wrote:
> What puzzles me about that is why this _doesn't_ pass SPF. The outbound
> node is also mta.ualr.edu, which is right there in the SPF record:
> "v=spf1 a:mta.ualr.edu include:_spf.google.com redirect=_spf.ualr.edu"
> I also don't quite
>From time to time I get this. I know what the message means, and why
it happens, but why does this message go into the paniclog and disturb
me, when I don't care at all about it and can't see why I should?
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details
On 2023-01-06, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> You could perhaps configure to not attempt to sign such messages
> by using a suitable expansion for dkim_domain. If you can't
> use something like $sender_address then $max_received_line_length
> might work.
Or I could just reject them on
On 2023-01-07, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-users wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023, Julian Bradfield via Exim-users wrote:
...
>> But the question was, why is this panic-worthy? I thought the paniclog
>> was supposed to indicate that exim is seriously broken, not just
>> encoun
On 2022-12-17, Mike Tubby via Exim-users wrote:
> Has something changed w.r.t. FTP access to exim.org?
>
> I have downloaded new versions of Exim for years using FTP CLI but now I
> can't files from two different hosts and with 'active' or 'passive' modes.
Works for me in active mode, but not
Thank you for the various replies!
Viktor wrote:
>> 2022-11-21 21:10:42 TLS error on connection from
>> r218.notifications.rbs.co.uk [130.248.154.218] (gnutls_handshake): A TLS
>> fatal alert has been received.
>
>OpenSSL would usually log the alert number (and associated text string),
>from
On 2022-11-23, Kirill Miazine via Exim-users wrote:
> • Julian Bradfield via Exim-users [2022-11-23 18:25]:
> [...]
>> Kirill wrote:
>>
>> something in base64 which got saved as such:)
>
> I wonder why...
Because when you save an article in slrn, it saves the
On 2022-11-23, Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users wrote:
> So, have you tried configuring a complete certificate chain (ideally
> without the Android compatibility crutch). Did that make any
> difference?
Well, since doing that I haven't seen any fatal alerts in the logs.
But I also haven't had
I should like to know what's happening here:
2022-11-21 21:10:42 TLS error on connection from r218.notifications.rbs.co.uk
[130.248.154.218] (gnutls_handshake): A TLS fatal alert has been received.
However, I can't see how to get any more information. I've tried
setting
add_environment =
On 2023-02-07, The Doctor via Exim-users wrote:
> Wonder if anyone has notice a problem with
> Windows based server like Exchange or spamrtmail
> sending to exim servers
What makes you think the problem is with the server software?
> No connection could be made because the target computer
36 matches
Mail list logo
