Werner Berger wrote:
Ich habe mich am Webformular auf der Exim-Seite angemeldet. Nachdem
ich vergeblich auf die auf die Bestätigungsmail gewartet habe, sah ich
in den Logs die Fehlermeldung. Es ist eine eingehende Mail.
mail.**.** ist mein Server mit dem frisch aufgespielten
Werner Berger, 2009-11-16 01:23:
Ich habe mich auf der Internetseite von exim.org angemeldet,
Bestätigungsmail kommt nicht an. Nur eine Zeile im Log.
2009-11-15 02:42:08 1N9U80-0002LE-19 H=tahini.csx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.192]
rejected DKIM : 220 mein.server.de ESMTP Exim 4.70 Sun, 15 Nov
On 29.05.2012 18:12, mailing wrote:
Wie sollte man so eine Userlist-Sync bewerkstelligen?
Es liegen nicht genug Informationen über dein System vor, um das zu
beantworten. Userverwaltung, Anzahl der Domains etc.?
Am einfachsten ist es wohl, per cron rsync laufen lassen (ob der primary
oder
Marc Haber wrote:
(CCing exim-dev for follow-ups)
While Envelope-Sender is defined to be added by the last mail server
in the transmission chain, it is probably a good thing to have that
information available for servers earlier in the chain. That's why I
think that it only makes sense if it
Chris Corbyn wrote:
See the error message below whilst testing what happens when trying to
deliver mail to a non-existent user on an exim setup using virtual
domains in an UW-vIMAP style. When sending to a user that does exist it
My crystal ball is broken, so you should probably write a
Chris Corbyn wrote:
And you should really use a valid return address...
--- snip ---
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unrouteable address
a temporary DNS problem perhaps? It worked fine here (manually tested
on the primary using an empty envelope).
I don't know, the message came from wumpus.mythic-beasts.com (sorry for
stripping the headers):
Subject:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
Does Exim have a random number generator?
Recent versions have the modulo operator, so you can build yourself a poor
man's RNG:
${if eq{${eval:($tod_epoch+$pid)%2}}{0}}
will give you true with a 50% (= 0.5 = reciprocal value of 2) chance (over
a sufficent long period).
user therion wrote:
a)server_advertise_condition checks if TLS is
given?! if YES then allow connection?!
b)server_condition =
${lookup{$2}dbm{/etc/exim/authdb}\
{${if eq{$value}{$3}{yes}{no}}}{no}}
allows only to connect with the user/pass in the
mentioned file!?
For both:
Jeff Lasman wrote:
1) send the welcome email
2) configure the DNS
3) add the new domain(s) to local_domains
That should work.
Messages may be deferred, so you should make sure that the mail is really
sent out before you advance.
--
## List details at
Slawomir Orlowski \(CYMPAK\) wrote:
deny malware = */defer_ok
message = Exim ClamAV this message contains a virus ($malware_name).
Questions:
How to configure exim (clamav) so error message is logged? (Right now is
not).
log_message = Message contains malware ($malware_name)
How to
user therion wrote:
in advance another question. Do I need to allow a
specific SMTP-header in my firewall to use TLS on
exim??
You need to allow STARTTLS for TLS to work (obviously), but further
traffic can not be inspected (as long as your firewall has no MITM
ability), so you can also
Slawomir Orlowski \(CYMPAK\) wrote:
fakereject - I have never heard about such key work,
It's all in the spec.
I have put it to my exim configure file and waiting for virus to come to
check it out
Send yourself the eicar testvirus
(http://eicar.com/anti_virus_test_file.htm) or let somebody
Slawomir Orlowski \(CYMPAK\) wrote:
Please keep list traffic on the list!
I have run http://www.webmail.us/testvirus test (24 test) for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] account
5 of them was cought and info about virus was added to rejectlog log
2 went through
what happened to the rest of them in
Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Ok, since nobody objected (or nobody were interested), I made a small
patch (attached) it ran fine on my system the last days.
Looking at the code in spam.c and the spamd interface, it seems easy to
solve this: Send the recipients in a Envelope-To (or something else,
Even
Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
failed to expand ACL string ${if !={$acl_m0}{} }: executable files
dangerous in email is not a number
I'm using Exim 4.60. Is there something wrong in the equality?
!= should be !eq.
=, etc. are for numeric comparisons.
--
## List details at
Marc Sherman wrote:
${if def{acl_m0}} should work, too.
that would be ${if def:acl_m0}. But it's nicer than eq with {}, that's
right. Don't know why all the people use it.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please
Jochen Gensch wrote:
22:10:19 51666 SMTP AUTH PLAIN AHN0YXR1cwB1Z2F1Z2E=
I hope these are not the credentials you are going to use in production.
22:10:19 51666result: USER
And after the line before there's no point in obfuscating.
22:10:19 51666 Answer 'NO PAM start error' received.
Jochen Gensch wrote:
I hope these are not the credentials you are going to use in production.
No, TLS is in use as well.
By credentials, I meant the username and password, which you posted base64
encoded to this list.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
##
Bill Hacker wrote:
bad idea. While RFC 2476 does not explicitly specify it, all
installations I know of use STARTTLS.
on this port, that is.
We have the luxury of not having to cater to WinWoes or Apple 'native'
alleged-MUA's, and use different SSL arrival ports for:
- faster setup than
Bill Hacker wrote:
- selecting different acl routing rules for different user groups
Depending on the incoming port? Sounds not very reliable.
Why so? Incoming ports tend to stay where you put 'em.
Sure, but client configurations tend to change all the time. And what
stops people from using
Bill Hacker wrote:
it is NOT required to use STARTTLS, many prefer to use
CRAM-MD5 or similar schemes which aren't vulnerable to sniffing.
How, pray tell, is the know-long-ago-compromised MD5 less 'vulnerable'
than the current higher-level releases of SSL/TLS?
It is surely not (and Kjetil
Marc Haber wrote:
How do I implement a relay_from_domains that works exactly like
relay_from_hosts just on domains. I want to do this so my clients can
only send mail from their own domains.
That's a really really really bad idea since everybody can happily
spam anybody through your server
Nigel Wade wrote:
Of course. Look at server_advertise_condition
Ah, I see. I can use this condition to ensure that AUTH is only
advertised if the connection is encrypted? Is that correct?
That's what the spec says, yes.
The most simple form is:
server_advertise_condition = ${if
Luca Bertoncello wrote:
Use $acl_c[0-9]
don't use acl_c, it sets variables for the whole connection and therefor
may have side effects if you receive more than one message in a single
connection.
In fact, I'm not sure I understand what you try to do. Save the result of
address verification from
Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:
can I put different conditions under each section like this
yes.
--
## 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/
Sujit Choudhury wrote:
Is there any way we can use another virus scanner (say clamav) without
changing the config a great deal. I think MailScanner provides
Don't know what a great deal is for you, but it's possible and explained
in the fine manual, at the end of chapter 40.1.
--
## List
xyon wrote:
IDENT request on tcp/113.. of course most of us drop connections on any
port we don't use, so if they don't get a response, they drop your
Why would anyone do that? DROP is a misbehaviour similar to the clueless
ICMP blocking (and breaking things like PMTU discovery) which is even
Doug Jolley wrote:
However, short of setting up a separate warn
statement which mirrors the conditions for each
of the accept statements, I'm not sure how I can
use the warn verb to accomplish this objective.
It thought that there's a way to add a header in an accept, but it seems
not.
Kenevel wrote:
Is there a way of avoiding having to maintain identical code in two
different places?
I have only errors_to set in my VERP router. You only need return_path in
the transport if you want to override errors_to. The errors_to address is
saved in $return_path, btw.
--
## List
Daevid Vincent wrote:
And Exim cannot do it (AFAIK).
I don't see why it can't do it? If Exim tries to connect directly, then it
First, because Exim is not programmed to do it. A permanent error means
the message is not deliverable.
Second, if the message gets discarded at the receiving site,
Marco wrote:
Can I send a custom SMTP error (ex. You must use an encrypted
session!!), when exim4 reject an non-encrypted authentication session?
No. If AUTH was not advertised, Exim will say something like AUTH not
advertised. But proper smtp clients will not use AUTH unless it was
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.
[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
Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
should exim support receiving a STARTTLS *before* receiving an EHLO?
no.
Well, it wouldn't hurt (just like allowing AUTH before EHLO), but why? No
proper client would do it.
openssl s_client -connect ssl.schlittermann.de:25 -starttls smtp
503 STARTTLS
Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
OpenSSL 0.9.7e 25 Oct 2004
OpenSSL 0.9.8a 11 Oct 2005
both do not send 'EHLO'. (Debian)
Looking at the sources, they put it into 0.9.7 starting with the f
version, but not in 0.9.8/8a (for whatever reason). The change is trivial,
it does not even check if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jakob wrote: (in response to POP-before-SMTP)
the pros and cons on this? Or, alternatively, can you give me a short
version of your thinking on this?
pop-before-smtp is merely hack, introduced because there smtp had no
authentication facility. But that is long ago,
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
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
Rafa wrote:
control. My problem is, that server is configured to return 450 for
invalid mailboxes, causing exim to interpret it as a temporary error.
This is broken, wrong and stupid.
4xx tells other MTAs to retry, but as they'll never accept that mail,
there is no point in doing so.
1.
Brent Clark wrote:
I was wondering if I shouldnt add something like
require_files = $local_part:$home/.forward
Your userforward router looks like it's debian-specific, so you probably
want to take this to the debian-exim list (pkg-exim4-users).
--
## List details at
Josh Berry wrote:
file=/share/admin/mailauth/STAR_plus.net.crt): error:02001002:system
library:fopen:No such file or directory
Is this file readable by the exim user?
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use
Josh Berry wrote:
Have tried strace but really, having never used it before, I have no
idea at all what the output means. Can you point me in the direction of
a website that tries to explain the output or what sort of thing i will
be looking for.
No, but it's not that hard:
- telnet 0 smtp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notice that the string produced by gen-auth is different from the string
produced by normal base64 encoders:
AGp1Z3NAZ29vZnl3ZXJrcy5jb20AQm9pbmdCMDFuZw==
decodes to:
$ base64decode AGp1Z3NAZ29vZnl3ZXJrcy5jb20AQm9pbmdCMDFuZw== | hexdump -C
00 6a 75 67 73
Marco Herrn wrote:
2006-02-09 13:19:49 1F7Am3-0008Uf-W1 = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
H=fmmailgate01.web.de [217.72.192.221] P=esmtp S=30388 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2006-02-09 13:24:49 1F7Am3-0008Uf-W1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: spamcheck transport
output: An error was detected while processing a file of BSMTP
Joerg Sommer wrote:
require_files = $local_part:$home/.forward
I don't think this helps.
Why not? It's a precondition, so the router will not run (and therefore
not defer) if ~/.forward is not accessible.
The fault is the user uucp is created by the
default installation, but not his home.
Joerg Sommer wrote:
require_files = $local_part:$home/.forward
I don't think this helps.
Why not? It's a precondition, so the router will not run (and therefore
not defer) if ~/.forward is not accessible.
As I understand the spec the check is only if the user exists (in
/etc/passwd). This
Marten Lehmann wrote:
{ eq{{true}{true}} } \
the correct syntax is { eq {true}{true}}
condition = ${if or{ \
{ eq{{true}{true}} } \
{ eq{{true}{true}} } \
Mike Jones wrote:
Is this something I need to set, or is this something they've changed on
their mail server ?
The former. Well, you don't need to, but it's likely to fix the problem.
They probably changed their firewall settings.
--
## List details at
Nigel Metheringham wrote:
I'm not sure that having a 30 second RFC1413 timeout is useful in any
normal circumstances nowadays. Best bet is to reduce it down to (say) 5
seconds.
I agree.
Then again if you have never used RFC1413 information or don't
know what it is you could just switch
Philip Hazel wrote:
Do you think I should change the default to 5s?
Yes. 5s should be enough for 99% of the connections, for the remainder:
Ident is (usually) non-critical for smtp.
I agree with the others that it would even not do big harm if ident
would be disabled by default, but I'm
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Is there a TODO for logging to stdout?
I doubt that you really want to log to stdout. tcpserver would send that
to the remote end.
Maybe something like log_file_path = /dev/stderr, otherwise you'll
have to change the sources. Should not be that hard...
--
## List
Luca Bertoncello wrote:
How can I set a differente Hostname for HELO for different Transports?
Set helo_data to whatever you want in your transports.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this
W B Hacker wrote:
You may 'think it is OK..' but RFC's aside, mail to 'postmaster' is more
often generated by a 'daemon', not a human, so the chance of it
Not that I'd patronise blocking the postmaster address, but why do you
think that? The postmaster address is specifically for humans to
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
I doubt that you really want to log to stdout. tcpserver would send that
to the remote end.
Umm, no. I'm not using tcpserver.
Oh. Then I wonder why you wrote in your original post:
I've just set up exim (4.54) for the first time on one of our servers,
and am
Sub Zero wrote:
and it is working okay. But I want to remove the header line
Return-Receipt-To: ... only in this unseen delivery filter (if you call
Section 42.6 of the Exim spec tells you how to do that.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details
Maykel Moya wrote:
Given that the condition of unexistent will remain on B, how can I
say A that generate a bounce when B reject the message, instead of
frozing it.
That is the default operation, so the config must have been changed in
some strange way. Maybe there's no dnslookup router, so A
Sub Zero wrote:
if ($sender_address MATCHES [EMAIL PROTECTED]) then
unseen deliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] headers remove Return-Receipt-To
endif
It's not that easy, because headers remove will work on both copies, I
think. Maybe(!) something like this could work:
if ($sender_address MATCHES
Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
Oh. Then I wonder why you wrote in your original post:
I've just set up exim (4.54) for the first time on one of our servers,
and am running the service using tcpserver (part of daemontools),
Because I wasn't thinking clearly. Sorry for that.
Never mind.
Rob Bernabe wrote:
Im a newbie to the list and to exim, so be gentle :)
Welcome.
First, please read the list ettiquette in wiki, particularly the part
don't start a new thread by replying to a list post and use
meaningful subjects (virtually there). That's as a gentle advice, of
course. :)
Im
Matthew Ford wrote:
When I telnet to my remote host on port 465, I just get the following, and
nothing more...
Does this confirm that my host is using ssl-on-connect? (NB I know the
It's likely, but it does only confirm that the port is not closed. To
test for SSL, use:
openssl s_client
Pascal wrote:
accept message= X-Blacklist-Whitelisted: $sender_host_address
warn message = X-Blacklist-Warning: $sender_host_address is
The accept matches before the warn, so the warn will not be used.
Reverse the two statements.
--
## List details at
Tom Fischer wrote:
It is artedona.de. The Domain exist. They relay about our Mail-Server
Yes, but the resolving is not only overly indirect (artedona.de -
ns{1,2}.ebuz-kunden.de - ns{1,2}.dns-resolver.net), the TTL for the MX
and NS RR is 1 (one!) second. You should really fix both of that.
Tom Fischer wrote:
Fixed the 1s TTL-Problem, i think i need vacation. This was only for
Vacation is always good :)
What makes you think that?
Because when i do a telnet connection to comcast mail gateway i have to
wait for about 4 minutes until it gives the return codes (maybe this is
You
Bradley Walker wrote:
Currently most all mail that is coming through that is getting frozen (which
is 85% spam) was around 80k at the largest. The average size I would say is
around 15-30k.
So you could safely add a 100k (see below). This will especially help if
your users receive large
Heiko Schlichting wrote:
First, please read the list etiquette before posting again, esp. the
paragraph about thread stealing.
How can I convert 1d10h17m36s into 123456 with exim? Although exim does
cumbersome (but with the right regex probably much easier) but feasible:
${eval:\
${if match
Stan Novogroudski wrote:
I'll have a list of mail adresses, which have to be redirected to
another smtp's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] another-smtp-ONE.my-domain.foo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] another-smtp-THO.my-domain.foo
this should work:
smtp_route:
driver = manualroute
transport = remote_smtp
Marco Mescoli wrote:
I would use exim as relay server (SMTP server in LAN email clients) and
i need a copy of any relayed messagges to a local user. Anyone can
Something like this in the routers section of your config should work:
local_copy:
driver = redirect
domains = !local_domains
data
Chris Purves wrote:
I would like to add a custom received_header_text as described at
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/EnvelopeSenderInReceived
You don't have to, because Exim sets a X-Envelope-From in the spool file
which is sent to spamd.
Which file do I edit/create to do this? I am
Marc Haber wrote:
Marc, who has been unsubscribed from my own mailing lists once for
spamassassin rejects
Are there really mailing list handlers out there that are _that_
draconic? I happily use SA on all lists (with exim-users as the only
exception, but I don't really remember why). From time
Marc Haber wrote:
For a mailing list manager, a 550 is a bounce. If you reject too much
spam (which easily happens on lists with a low S/N ratio), you'll get
unsubscribed.
That might be true for some, but I know at least one (mlmmj) which sends
out a probe and unsubscribes people only if that
Jeremy Harris wrote:
warn
set acl_m9 = ${lookup mysql{stuff} {$value}}
{$value} is not necessary here.
if acl_m9 contains 1 then
That isn't acl syntax either. Perhaps
No, but filter syntax (same as below).
Perhaps you should buy the book.
It's all in the spec.
--
## List details at
Michael Bordignon wrote:
I'm trying to have exim look at the sender address for all incoming
mail, if it matches more than one row (via a mysql query) then prepend
the subject with 'foo'.
I've come this far;
--
set acl_m9 = mysql;SELECT COUNT(*) FROM prospect_addresses WHERE email
you
Jürgen Herz wrote:
Ah, and the envelope from can't be rewritten in transport.
return_path
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
Frank Elsner wrote:
drop message = REJECTED - Bad HELO - IP address not allowed
[$sender_helo_name]
condition = ${if isip {$sender_helo_name}}
An IP is definitly allowd,
Only if in square brackets [], so isip is a good check. Most (if not
all) spammers with EHLO x.x.x.x use
Michael Bordignon wrote:
if ${lookup mysql {SELECT COUNT(*) FROM addresses WHERE email LIKE
However, it merely returns
Filter error: unrecognized condition word mysql near line 10 of
filter file
Try surrounding the lookup with double quotes: ${lookup mysql ...}
Oh, and please honour
Paul Johnson wrote:
bl.spamcop.net
This one is good, but I strongly suggest implementing SpamAssassin at
Funny. Esp. spamcop is notorious for listing arbitrary hosts with opaque
reasoning and unwilling to unlist.
There's also one I operate[2] and use on my mail servers that you might find
Jeff Lasman wrote:
snip
accept sender_domains = +whitelist_domains
domains = +local_domains
/snip
I think that'll do it. Am I missing something?
Depending on how you check your clients' authenticity (smtp auth,
allowed IP addresses etc.), you could add that also to this ACL to
Michael Bordignon wrote:
I want to modify the message headers (prepend some text to the subject)
based on whether or not the $sender_address is in a database. I've tried
There's really no need to start a new thread for this topic, just
because your message was not answered within 5 hours.
Bradley Walker wrote:
I posted this to the SpamAssassin mailing list and they suggested that it
would be an Exim problem, due to SpamAssassin child process possibly taking
a few minutes to run various spamtests on it, but Exim times out waiting for
the message to come back, kills the SA child
Bradley Walker wrote:
I didn't ignore your first message, in fact I read it, have it archived in a
folder here to continue to try and discern helpful information from. Being
I'm working 14-17 hours a day as a business owner, replies sometimes can't
always come in due time.
Sorry if I seemed
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
Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
driver = redirect
data = ${quote_local_part:[EMAIL PROTECTED],\
${quote_local_part:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the original message were addressed to two recipients that would
probably result in two distinct messages being routed to b.example.com
right?
routed yes,
Martin Windfuhr wrote:
Hello NG,
This is a mailing list, not a newsgroup.
how can I set up exim to receive emails from a t-online - address each
10min and forward these emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just like receiving mail from any other address: Set up an MX and/or A
RR pointing at your
Tim Jackson wrote:
scope of Exim. Use some software called fetchmail:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/fetchmail/
Sorry for drifting even more into offtopic, but the ESR's original
version is unmaintained and contains critical bugs. Use the new project
at http://fetchmail.berlios.de/.
--
## List
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
Has there been any discussion of patching exim to add greylisting support
(so outside programs are not needed)?
Probably, but I don't think it's worth the hassle. You can do it more
easily and much more flexible with Exim's ACLs, so there's no good to
code this in the
Quoting Jerry Stuckle:
However, more of the spam getting through has a HELO/EHLO name
containing a random string of characters.
Most spam here has ehlo/helo
- numeric only (like 134965176 or -1270794688)
- unqualified (like friend or localhost)
- IP address without []
condition = ${if isip
Quoting Tony Marques:
I would just like to add to remember to reject your own domain
names unless you like to talk you yourself. Also very popular
among viruses.
The OP wrote he's already doing that, so I skipped that rules:
Block EHLO [my.ip.add.ress]:
condition = ${if eq
Quoting Jakob Hirsch:
condition = ${if !match {$sender_helo_name}
{\N^([a-z0-9][-_a-z0-9]*\.)+[a-z]{2,6}$\N}}
This should have been case-insensitive:
condition = ${if !match {$sender_helo_name}
{\N^(?i)([a-z0-9][-_a-z0-9]*\.)+[a-z]{2,6}$\N}}
I have it now running with warn/log_message
Quoting Jerry Stuckle:
I appreciate your concern. However, you do not understand my company,
my needs or my situation. Please do not think to advise me as to what I
should or should not do.
Nobody is doing that, but still everybody is allowed to express his
opinion. If you see this as an
Quoting Jerry Stuckle:
I'm sorry. Yes, they are. I was not asking for advice as to whether or
not I should block other countries. I was asking how to do it should I
do so.
It doesn't matter much. Starting a thread neither means owning the
thread nor having control over it. Everybody is
Quoting Mar Matthias Darin:
save /dev/null
sorry, but this turns a wrong idea into a stupid one. If you don't like
mail, be polite enough to reject it at smtp time. Exim's ACLs are
powerful enough to do that.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim
Quoting daniel:
control = submission
This should probably be
control = submission/sender_retain
Otherwise, Exim seems to take $authenticated_id and adds the default
domain.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at
Quoting Marc Sherman:
control = submission/sender_retain
Otherwise, Exim seems to take $authenticated_id and adds the default
domain.
Actually, the best solution is:
control = submission/domain=
In this special case, yes, if the authenticated id is guaranteed to be a
valid email
Quoting Olivier Bonvalet:
I haven't got enough entropy on my servers, and /dev/random is
blocking.
Now, I'll search to a true solution :
Do you really need TLS for sending out your newsletter?
If not: hosts_avoid_tls is expanded, so you could use it for disabling
TLS when sending out the
Quoting Jason Meers:
Usual Permissions required on Config Files
owner:exim, group:exim, permissions:644
This should be 640, at least if you have secret information like
passwords (e.g. for db access) or private keys in your config.
The exim binary is usually SUID, so it will have sufficient
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
Quoting Tony Finch:
it won't hurt and it will tell the clueful ones that the spam is not sent by
It will hurt: you will no longer be able to email a significant proportion
of the users at many sites.
In theory, maybe, but you'll get notified (as long as nobody's
blackholing). In pratice, I
1 - 100 of 482 matches
Mail list logo
