On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:14:39PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Ok, logs were still on the server I was using earlier. Here's part
of one of the connections in question.
LDAP server logs are no way to report a suspected Postfix issue to
this list. They are for LDAP administrators, not
On 26.10.2011 02:20, Harald Koch wrote:
On 25/10/2011 5:29 PM, Seth Kneller wrote:
I have postfix and roundcube installed on the same server, postfix
is
setup to use SASL auth and STARTTLS and I can send messages from
remote clients. However I cannot send messages from roundcube on the
On 10/25/2011 4:57 PM, Seth Kneller wrote:
I apologise, the reason I have posted here is that I cannot see anything
that is wrong with my roundcube configuration. However I suspect that
maybe it can't cope with STARTTLS?
STARTTLS is meant for over-the-wire security. It's unnecessary when
On 10/25/2011 5:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Probably the best solution is to uncomment the smtps wrappermode SSL
master.cf entry, then configure roundcube to submit mail on ssl port
465.
Maybe I'm missing something Noel. Why have RC use auth for relay
submission when both RC and Postfix reside
On 10/25/2011 03:09 PM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
So why it is important to return something from LDAP in order to be
*sure* entry exists? Search without result_attribute responds with 1
match. Why it can't be a key for descision, that there is a entry and
let message to pass through? Thanks
Hello all,
Please take a moment and point me in the right direction: I would
like to set up a greylisting solution (such as postgrey or greylist.pl)
only for one recipient (local delivery to *nix account). A link or any
pointer in the right direction would be welcomed.
Cheers,
--
Razvan
On 26/10/2011 10:29 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
On 10/25/2011 03:09 PM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
So why it is important to return something from LDAP in order to be
*sure* entry exists? Search without result_attribute responds with 1
match. Why it can't be a key for descision, that there is
Zitat von Razvan Chitu c...@topedge.ro:
Hello all,
Please take a moment and point me in the right direction: I
would like to set up a greylisting solution (such as postgrey or
greylist.pl) only for one recipient (local delivery to *nix
account). A link or any pointer in the right
Hello List
My first time here so, please, point me any mistakes.
I need some special setup for my postfix server (running postfix-2.6.5 + mysql
on x86_64 kernel 2.6.31) with 11 virtual domains.
I have several users that does not need to send email offsite, so I've managed
to create
On 10/26/2011 11:02 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:29 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
If you don't want to check users, use:
relay_recipient_maps =
(i.e. without any value)
You may want to read this message:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/postfix-users/message/279682
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
This is a new one on me - I've never seen spammers attempt to use to SASL Auth
to inject spam. Has anyone else seen this?
Oct 17 15:07:16 mail postfix/smtpd[14422]: connect from unknown[208.86.147.92]
Oct 17 15:07:16 mail dovecot: auth(default):
* Duane Hill duih...@gmail.com:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Simon Brereton wrote:
This is a new one on me - I've never seen spammers attempt to use to SASL
Auth to inject spam. Has anyone else seen this?
Oct 17 15:07:16 mail postfix/smtpd[14422]: connect from
unknown[208.86.147.92]
Oct 17
On 26/10/2011 12:06 μμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
you miss a point. It's not about the usage of one or another postfix
config parameter. It is about postfix behavior based on LDAP protocol
search operation/results.
Sorry, I misread your initial post.
Nick
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
Zitat von Nerijus Kislauskas nerijus.kislaus...@ktu.lt:
On 10/26/2011 11:02 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:29 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
If you don't want to check users, use:
relay_recipient_maps =
(i.e. without any value)
You may want to read this message:
On 10/26/2011 4:06 AM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
As I can see now, postfix decides, that user exists when some attribute
(or set of attributes) is returned from a search operation. And in my
opinion that is wrong behavior. LDAP search operation returns DN (or set
of DN's) everytime the search
On 10/26/2011 01:28 PM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
In some cases the results from a database lookup are
needed in others not
Exactly. I should be able to get them, when I need them, and not when I
don't. It's not about problems, it's about protocols and the way they
are used.
--
Pagarbiai,
On 10/26/2011 2:19 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 10/25/2011 5:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Probably the best solution is to uncomment the smtps wrappermode SSL
master.cf entry, then configure roundcube to submit mail on ssl port
465.
Maybe I'm missing something Noel. Why have RC use auth for
On 10/26/2011 2:56 AM, Pa - Soscpd wrote:
Hello List
My first time here so, please, point me any mistakes.
I need some special setup for my postfix server (running
postfix-2.6.5 + mysql on x86_64 kernel 2.6.31) with 11 virtual domains.
I have several users that does not need to
On 26.10.2011 07:58, Tobias Hachmer wrote:
On 26.10.2011 02:20, Harald Koch wrote:
On 25/10/2011 5:29 PM, Seth Kneller wrote:
I have postfix and roundcube installed on the same server, postfix
is
setup to use SASL auth and STARTTLS and I can send messages from
remote clients. However I cannot
Ralf Hildebrandt:
relay=mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200]:25, delay=6.4, delays=0.27/0.01/6.1/0,
dsn=5.5.0, status=bounced (Protocol error: host
mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200] refused to talk to me: 220-mail.charite.de
ESMTP 421-4.3.2 All server ports are busy 421 4.3.2
This is fixed in
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Ralf Hildebrandt:
relay=mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200]:25, delay=6.4,
delays=0.27/0.01/6.1/0, dsn=5.5.0, status=bounced (Protocol error: host
mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200] refused to talk to me: 220-mail.charite.de
ESMTP 421-4.3.2 All server
On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
requirement is that a result must be returned, but the value is not
used. As long as a lookup returns anything, the user is
Hi
I finally got around to implementing SPF for my mail server and domains. A lot
easier than I thought it would be, certainly much easier than DKIM and I'm
ashamed I didn't do it earlier.
In the course of doing that, I noticed that gmail/yahoo both add X-Headers
about the validity of the
On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
...
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with
policyd? And if not, and I must install postfix-policyd-spf-python
or postfix-policyd-spf-perl which do you
Nerijus Kislauskas:
On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
requirement is that a result must be returned, but the value is not
used. As long as a lookup
On 10/26/2011 8:56 AM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
requirement is that a result must be returned, but the value is not
used.
On 26 October 2011 10:27, Scott Kitterman post...@kitterman.com wrote:
On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
...
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with
policyd? And if not, and I must
On 10/26/2011 10:44 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
On 26 October 2011 10:27, Scott Kittermanpost...@kitterman.com wrote:
On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
...
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do
Hello -
We are in need of an hourly resource to ask questions get configuration help
for postfix from time to time.
Email me privately if you're interested: d...@danrichman.com
Thanks -
Update: Found someone. That was fast.
Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 04:56:40PM +0300, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
requirement is that a result must be returned, but
On 10/26/2011 08:11 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
The LDAP table driver considers entries that match the query filter,
but which lack the requested attributes, or have only empty values
for the requested attributes to not be matching attributes. The Postfix
dictionary abstraction above the
On 2011-10-26 01:37, Jack Fredrikson wrote:
**Hey, everybody: thanks so much for trying to help. I really
appreciate it. But I've killed a week and before I kill myself, I'm
throwing in the towel until I build that new
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity add a
header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with policyd? And if
not, and I must install postfix-policyd-spf-python or postfix-policyd-spf-perl
which do you recommend and why?
Can't help you with Amavis,
Nerijus Kislauskas:
On 10/26/2011 08:11 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
The LDAP table driver considers entries that match the query filter,
but which lack the requested attributes, or have only empty values
for the requested attributes to not be matching attributes. The Postfix
dictionary
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:17:17PM +0300, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
On 10/26/2011 08:11 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
The LDAP table driver considers entries that match the query filter,
but which lack the requested attributes, or have only empty values
for the requested attributes to not be
Em 26/10/2011 09:23, Noel Jones escreveu:
On 10/26/2011 2:56 AM, Pa - Soscpd wrote:
Hello List
My first time here so, please, point me any mistakes.
I need some special setup for my postfix server (running
postfix-2.6.5 + mysql on x86_64 kernel 2.6.31) with 11 virtual domains.
I have
Hi,
I'm trying to achieve the following:
Stop spammers (obviously)
Permit relaying when I'm outside the network (using SASL)
After reading through postconf, to prevent duplicate checks I removed
a number of checks from smtpd_sender_restrictions, so that it now
looks like this:
On 10/26/2011 11:06 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Lose the attitude or go away. You're new here, it rather presumptuous
to start lecturing people who've been here for 10+ years.
Then I will hit myself in the cheek.
The Postfix LDAP driver does not know
whether the result is wanted or not
On Wednesday 26 October 2011 16:28:43 IT geek 31 wrote:
I'm trying to achieve the following:
Stop spammers (obviously)
Permit relaying when I'm outside the network (using SASL)
After reading through postconf, to prevent duplicate checks I
removed a number of checks from
I'm slowly switching all my UNIX needs over to Macports packages, from Mac OS X
Server's Admin console. This means learning a few new things, such as mail in
general, and Postfix in particular.
Now, I've found lots of tutorials on Postfix that cover a range of topics,
seemingly for
Hi Rob
Thanks for your reply - that's certainly cleared a few things up!
check_recipient_access hash:/usr/pkg/etc/postfix/access,
access is a bad name for this. Since you're checking recipient
addresses, I would suggest a name of rcpt_access, or similar.
I've renamed this to sender_access
Ren? Fournier:
I'm slowly switching all my UNIX needs over to Macports packages,
from Mac OS X Server's Admin console. This means learning a few
new things, such as mail in general, and Postfix in particular.
Now, I've found lots of tutorials on Postfix that cover a range
of topics,
--On October 26, 2011 6:08:56 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:14:39PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Ok, logs were still on the server I was using earlier. Here's part
of one of the connections in question.
LDAP server logs are
--On October 26, 2011 4:45:01 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
qua...@zimbra.com wrote:
I'm using simple binds as I have since postfix 2.3. I actually was not
aware the code for using SASL mechanism binds had been added to postfix.
Very happy to know that. ;) I have my own test server set up
On 2011-10-26, at 5:41 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
With high enough volume it may be more productive to hire a
professional email service provider (ESP). I'm not in that business.
For a variety of reasons, this isn't an option for us.
Any suggestions where to start? I suppose there's a bit of
On Wednesday 26 October 2011 18:09:56 René Fournier wrote:
Now, I've found lots of tutorials on Postfix that cover a range of
topics, seemingly for moderate-to-complex needs. Mine are pretty
simple. I have a server that simply needs to send out notification
emails on a regular, high-volume
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:42:54PM -0600, Ren? Fournier wrote:
High-volume email is not covered in Postfix documentation as the
requirements are complex and subject to change.
Well, high volume is maybe overstating it. I would guess a few
hundred outgoing emails a day, mostly to
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:10:41PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I'm using simple binds as I have since postfix 2.3. I actually was not
aware the code for using SASL mechanism binds had been added to postfix.
Very happy to know that. ;) I have my own test server set up now so I
can
--On October 27, 2011 4:14:12 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
Therefore, I propose the following Postfix fix/work-around which
is required for anyone running Postfix 2.3 or later, linked with
OpenLDAP 2.4 or later (perhaps even late 2.3.x releases, I just
compared
On 27/10/2011 12:59 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
(a) group needs read permission on result_attribute attributes, while
(b) group needs only search permission. What I want from all ot this,
that postfix would be able to work with minimal required ldap access
permissions. And now you require
Well, I checked, I was off a bit. About 10,000 per day. Still low though it
seems.
On 2011-10-26, at 9:40 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:42:54PM -0600, Ren? Fournier wrote:
High-volume email is not covered in Postfix documentation as the
requirements are complex and
52 matches
Mail list logo
