Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Bowie Bailey writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
As such, since the whole process is under the complete control of
the recipient, the recipient must then recognize that SPF will not
be functional on forwarded mail. The recipient must concede to
disabling SPF as he
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Currently, the only way that one can concede forwarding is by IP
address. This may make sense for a fully controlled backup MX. In
general, the same IP address can be used to forward a message as well
as to submit a new one. The forwarded-to recipient has no way to
, but Courier merely refuses to wait for a 129th
connection to be accepted by C::F and rejects the message with a
temporary SMTP status code (432 Mail filters temporarily unavailable).
The filter in question is pureperlfilter, which is written by Julian
Mehnle, who has requested that support
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Gordon Messmer writes:
As far as I can tell, filters won't see the COMCTLFILE_MSGSOURCE (u)
line *most* of the time. It'll be in the first control file if there
were enough recipients to require more than one, but otherwise the
line is written after the filters are
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Sam, now that 0.58 has been released in November, is there any chance
that you will look into these two related issues for the next Courier
release?
I believe they were resolved in 0.57.1.
Wow. I wonder why that wasn't announced big time, given
Vincent,
I just saw that you had reported this to the courier-users mailing list a
year ago already. I am sorry that haven't had much time (and momentum)
to work on C::F.
Vincent Schonau wrote:
Occasionally, the Courier::Filter 0.17 pureperlfilter will crash for
me, leaving the following
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Gordon Messmer writes:
As far as I can tell, filters won't see the COMCTLFILE_MSGSOURCE (u)
line *most* of the time. It'll be in the first control file if there
were enough recipients to require more than one, but otherwise the
line is written after the filters are
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Marco Balmer wrote:
But why did courier not accept it anyway, because ip4 address in the
spf record is matching the incoming connection in my case? Is mx
prefered?
Setting many references to further DNS records has been feared as
a way to put DoS attacks to a
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Marco Balmer writes:
Does courier support spf2 records?
No. SPF2 is patent-encumbered.
For the record, it's really just the PRA algorithm (RFC 4407) that's
patent-encumbered, and given that the algorithm is really just an
application of Resent-* header logic from
Sam,
I'd like to feed back that I just wasted about three hours trying to figure
out why I was getting 550 User unknown errors from my Courier server
when submitting messages for a (newly created) local user who has 4 dashes
in their name. This 3 dashes limit isn't documented anywhere but in
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Ironically, this, too, defies Courier's attempts at being efficient
There's nothing ironic about it.
My point being, I think Courier should offer a mode where it parses
messages' MIME structure only _after_ having called the courierfilters
Jeff wrote:
I was wondering if anyone has done anything related or knows if
DomainKeys will be implemented on Courier any time in the future?
No, since DomainKeys is patented by Yahoo, on GPL-incompatible terms.
I believe it is dual-licensed under either Yahoo's license -or- GPL,
so
Lorenzo Perone wrote:
I do this by calling spamc over a courierfilter for a pre-scan, using a
systemwide bayes db and systemwide settings, rejecting anything over a
certain threshold, and then calling it again as xfilter over maildrop,
using user bayes and user settings. In this second run SA
Bill Taroli wrote:
Hmm not sure why I'd be seeing this lookup result come back, since
as far as I can tell all my DNS setup is correct. This isn't resulting
in a failure to deliver mail, at least, because the MAILFROM test still
passes... but I wouldn't expect to be getting an error on
Pete Toscano wrote:
Some mail sent to us is bouncing because the sender is putting a huge
list of recipients in the header. Yeah, it's bad form. Yeah, it'd be
great if they'd stop doing it, but changing them is not an option --
sadly.
Is there any way to change this outside of patching the
Pete Toscano wrote:
[bofh/maxrcpts]
Sweet. Is there a way to turn it off? IOW, can you set it to something
like 0 and have it just disregard this check?
Good question; I don't know. Sam?
From what I can tell, you can't set this on a per-domain basis, correct?
Correct.
Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
I've never configured SPF, I don't even know if my version of courier
supports SPF (I'm using 0.44.2)
No, it doesn't. The first version of Courier that supported SPF
_checking_ was 0.47.0.
However, that doesn't matter in this case, because it was another server,
not
Jay Lee wrote:
Julian Mehnle said:
Jay Lee wrote:
I created the link in /usr/lib/courier/libexec/filters myself so
that I could use filterctl. I'd also tried creating the
/etc/courier/filters/active/pureperlfilter link manually myself.
courierfilter starts pureperlfilter
Ben Kennedy wrote:
Modified to:
'^Received: from .*\s+\(.*\)\s+\((.* )?AUTH\:\ '
This is how Courier::Message[1] from Courier::Filter does it:
sub authenticated {
my ($message) = @_;
return $message-{authenticated}
if defined($message-{authenticated});
TRY: {
#
Jay Lee wrote:
I created the link in /usr/lib/courier/libexec/filters myself so that I
could use filterctl. I'd also tried creating the
/etc/courier/filters/active/pureperlfilter link manually myself.
courierfilter starts pureperlfilter but it doesn't seem to have any
affect on incoming
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Ben Kennedy wrote:
In this example, pureperlfilter is cleaning up its socket (though
sometimes for whatever reason the socket stays around causing it to
refuse to launch subsequently); perlfilter is not removing its.
IMHO, the latter is correct. But again, I have
Wladimir Mutel wrote:
In Exim, there is nice facility of sender verification by
smtp-callback. Helps to reject a lot of spam. Could you please
advise how to implement the same in Courier ?
You could simply write a call-back filter module for Courier::Filter
(Courier::Filter::Module::CallBack)
Jay Lee wrote:
I'm having trouble getting global filtering working using
Courier::Filter. I've installed Courier::Filter and dependencies. I
can successfully use test-filter-module to verify Courer::Filter is
working. I can start and stop pureperlfilter with filterctl and
/var/log/maillog
Lloyd Zusman wrote:
If possible, I'd like Courier::Filter to only read the set of headers
for each message, and to never attempt to read any of the bodies.
Well, the message text is only read into memory when any of the text(),
header(), or body() methods of a Courier::Message object are
Antuan Avdioukhine wrote:
Is there any comparasions or success stories of courier-IMAP? I'm
preparing an upgrade plan and want to change current POP3 sever up to
courier POP/IMAP, but my co-workers want to see wy courier is the best
choice ;)
Courier IMAP may or may not be the best choice,
Dirk Kulmsee wrote:
We all would love to block spam at the earliest stage, but at least here
in Good ol' Germany you are half way in Jail if you do so.
Mail letters are PERSONAL and you may not intrude.
This is nonsense. Just put a clause into your AGB (Terms and Conditions),
then you're
Jay Lee wrote:
with some perl scripting, one could probably get something similar with
Spamassassin at SMTP time
A simple SpamAssassin module for Courier::Filter might look like the
following. I just hacked it together off the top of my head, so it hasn't
been tested, but I will probably
Dirk Kulmsee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Mehnle schrieb:
For rejecting spam, I rely solely on reputation systems (i.e.
blacklists) and I recommend to my users that they use the SpamCop
reporting service[2] to report spam.
In my opinion this is not the (always) the way to go. It bears
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Even if you looked at the envelope recipients, what you are trying to
do is generally impossible, because in the end it is not the
delivered-to _recipient_address_ that counts (as you already noticed)
but the delivered-to _mailbox_, which cannot
Chuck Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using default mail delivery to ./Maildir in each user's home
directory, and I've got several distribution lists set up up as
multiple-recipient aliases (defined in Webadmin). If a specific
recipient occurs directly or indirectly in a message, that
Lucio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Courier already has a big-brother option.
Yes, I know. But I need the users to be aware of the fact that their
messages are being sniffed, so I have to force them to send CCs of
thier messages to the big-brother address.
When I read
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Your filter (or filter module, if you decide to use one of the modular
frameworks) would need to check the list of envelope recipients (the
headers aren't exactly authoritative as far as actual message delivery
is concerned) for the copy address, and then either return
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
The strategy in [draft-varshavchik-exdata-smtpext] has been in Courier
for years.
Courier has an internal API for recipient-specific content filters. If
enabled, Courier will begin behaving exactly as that document describes.
How can this be enabled? To what extent
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
How can this be enabled?
man localmailfilter
Oh, that. Now I see the connection. Thanks for the pointer.
The draft also describes, exactly, what to do with mailing list
traffic. It really describes what Courier's been doing, for quite some
Sander Holthaus wrote:
Would it be possible or would you consider making a bofh-option to
refuse such addresses?
Why don't you do what Sam already suggested on 2005-01-19?
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
I'm not aware of anything that technically prohibits such an MX record.
But they can be easily
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
Also, am I right that the various items can be split on /,\s+/, and
that this pattern and closing parentheses ()) won't appear in them?
Or do I have to handle balanced
Hi Sam,
how is Courier's Received: header format specified? I do know the
general Received: header format; I am especially interested in the
second from comment field:
| Received: from nova (p549A64A3.dip.t-dialin.net [:::84.154.100.163])
| (AUTH: LOGIN [EMAIL PROTECTED], TLS:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Here, it is AUTH: LOGIN [EMAIL PROTECTED], TLS:
TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5. But what's the general format? What
assumptions can I make when trying to parse the AUTH part?
There are a couple of other things that can appear there, but there's
db [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can courier read domains, relay domains, addresses and so on from a
(pgsql) db?
Yes.
If yes, can you direct me to some tutorial? I've read most of the doc on
http://www.courier-mta.org/, also the doc about authlib, but I can't
find anything.
There is no tutorial
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
[taking off list, as I think I have borked my setup.]
No, unfortunately this is a general issue with IO::InnerFile. See below.
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Try 0.11 as soon as it appears
on CPAN (which should be within the next few hours).
That got me futher, but I'm
Mark Bucciarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 15:03, Julian Mehnle wrote:
* Added the ClamAVd filter module for malware filtering using a
ClamAV `clamd` dameon.
Looks like this modules required ClamAV::Client? I was not able to
retrieve it using CPAN.
Below
Peter Holm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=3780089
is this still true?
Is _what_ still true?
You could use chroots (or jails if you're on BSD) which only expose a
single IP address of the host system each, so Courier would have no chance
but use
Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Courier::Filter 0.16 has been released on CPAN[1].
The most important changes are:
* Added the ClamAVd filter module for malware filtering using a
ClamAV `clamd` dameon.
Before I dive into this new release, does that mean
Alexander Lazic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mit 19.01.2005 12:59, Julian Mehnle wrote:
The point of using Courier::Filter is that it is very flexible and
supports arbitrary filter modules and complex filter module
configurations, not just ClamAV scanning.
But at the moment the quequefile
Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here's my question, would it be risky to drop the backup MX
completely? We're on a T1 that has been extremely reliable the past
few years. Should we have an outage, we'd have 4 hours I believe
until most mailservers would start generating delayed
Jay Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Mehnle said:
If it's a cost issue, run just one (i.e. drop the differently
configured secondary MX). That's what I actually do.
Have you ever had issues with downtime or lost mail?
Nothing where a secondary MX would have helped.
Martijn Lievaart
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No -- the problem that prevents this from working is that by that time
the message's MIME structure is already parsed. If, suddenly the
message's contents change, the pre-parsed offsets of various MIME
entities in the message will result in a corrupted
Hi all,
Courier::Filter 0.16 has been released on CPAN[1].
The most important changes are:
* Added the ClamAVd filter module for malware filtering using a ClamAV
`clamd` dameon.
* Added the SPFout filter module for outbound SPF filtering.
* Some changes to the classic SPF filter
Yvonne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Samedi 15 Janvier 2005 12:47, Stefan Hornburg a écrit :
You need to install the Perl module MIME::Parser.
Sorry for the question but where can I find the Perl module
MIME::Parser and how can I install il ?
Install the p5-MIME-Tools port:
Yvonne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok : I do a pkg_add -r P5-MIME-Tools and the filter works.
The problem is that the mail is not delivered to the quarantine folder
...
Sorry, I can't help you with that as I don't know Lindsay's filter.
Perhaps Lindsay can?
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
I had the same problem a while back with a couple of other lists, one a
gentoo list and one on sourceforge. Seems they were using servers in
Italy which had been compromised and were being used to send out spam.
The listings were with SpamCop, which I had to remove from
chester c young wrote:
does anyone have any idea on how to have ssl with multiple domains? in
imapd-ssl, for example, a certificate is generated for one domain - that
works fine, but when a second domain logs in, the mail client
(thunderbird) gives a big warning that the certificate does not
Mark Bucciarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Woody is ships with Perl 5.6. Courier::Filter requires 5.8.
If I build and put perl 5.8 in /usr/local/bin and 5.6 in /usr/bin
(e ...), will pureperlfilter and Courier::Filter then work?
You'd then have to change the `perl` path in
Kaare Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still no problem, but it apparantly flushes the accept for the email
reception. Next time I want to poll for email, I have to accept the
certificate again.
I use SSL for reception and TLS for SMTP.
Is this a feature, a bug in the client (kmail) or
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2005-01-11 14:45:41, schrieb Kaare Rasmussen:
Is this a feature, a bug in the client (kmail) or do I just have to
accept the situation ?
Do you have imported the Certificat into kMail ?
It seems not.
As far as I am concerned, I have a
David Aspinall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] What surprises me is that I think a filter pass should be made
before the pass off to the MDA. I think what I really wanted was a
specific global place to plug in virus/spam scanners regardless of the
final MDA.
You can do that anyway: just
Jason L. Buberel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Found the following sequence in my logs this AM (courier v0.47). What I
found odd was that courier reported the SPF failure in the logs after
reporting that the message had been delivered:
[...]
There is no evidence of another message in the queue
Jason L. Buberel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the header/envelope information on a message that also generated
an SPF failure in my logs. Based on the Received-SPF headers, it looks
like everything passed. Yet the log output corresponding to this message
indicates otherwise (see below):
Ben Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, if you are trying to BCC something to both me and my
enemy, it is incumbent upon your outbound service to keep them separate
and private. If both my enemy and I happened to live on the same host,
our inbound SMTP would be providing a
Randy PerlStalker Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am continuing my quixotic attempt to stop spam from coming into my
mail server. Having seen the effectiveness of SPF, I'm now looking
into implementing DomainKeys (http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys).
If you think that SPF or DK will stop
Randy PerlStalker Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
There's been several different versions of SPF documentation floating
around.
Courier uses the logic documented in draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt, see
that document for the definition of these results.
Are there any
Adrián Fabricio Gutiérrez wrote:
I could make work Courier::Filter with SPF but I could not
obtain that it verifies if a user is valid in the SMTP server.
Due to my lack of time because of my work I am myself forced to
render to me, since I cannot obtain that protocol SPF works to avoid
this
Adrián Fabricio Gutiérrez wrote:
All is OK except for a problem in the installation of Courier::Filter
my /var/log/maillog file it appears the message:
courierfilter: Unable to create socket
/var/lib/courier/allfilters/.pureperlfilter at
/usr/share/courier-filter-perl/perl5/Courier/Filter.pm
Martijn Lievaart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so the filters are run for every locally delivered message. But can
I whitelist some recipients unconditionally, no bloclists applied, or do
I have to use BLOCK2.
Courier does not currently support applying DNS blocklists to certain
recipients
Lindsay Haisley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Julian Mehnle on Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:39:19AM CST
Why don't you do what Jerry did, i.e. contact Postini and get them fix
their servers?
I've already written [EMAIL PROTECTED] about it, and the other
address I have for them, [EMAIL
Lindsay Haisley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Jerry Amundson on Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:44:21PM CST
I've turned off security for their domains...
psknet.com: psknet.com/SECURITY=NONE
in etc/esmtproutes, as they seem to have some kind of STARTTLS issue.
For what it's worth, I'm
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Jansen writes:
First, fetchmail should be bouncing these messages back to the sender
if it gets a hard (5XX) error from courier.
No, it shouldn't. As you know, the return address on spam is forged,
so all you'll be doing is annoying innocent
Adrián Fabricio Gutiérrez wrote:
I can [use] Courier::Filter only for this problem?
or I need other additional components (SPF parts, perl others, etc.)
No, you don't need to use the other modules.
If you use the SPF filter module, of course you need to install the
Mail::SPF::Query Perl
Hi all,
Courier::Filter is now included in the Debian distribution, with the
package name courier-filter-perl[1], beginning with the newly released
version 0.15 -- which will of course also be available from CPAN[2] within
the next day.
0.15 is only a minor bugfix release. The changes are:
*
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Adrián Fabricio Gutiérrez wrote:
All work OK except when I send a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to [EMAIL PROTECTED], courier permit send, no has control about identity
of nonexistent-user that send mail =(.
SMTP doesn't define a mechanism for verifying return
Pollywog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I could leave Postfix out of this were it not for the fact that I
have no idea how to do the spam control in Courier MTA; I can't find
documentation for this.
Depending on what kind of spam control you want, there's a variety of
solutions (and
Alessandro Vesely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
[...]
Now someone at pobox.com (which is SPF protected) sends me a message
to my cpan.org address. The cpan.org MTA forwards the message to the
mehnle.net MTA, which sees the pobox.com envelope sender being used
Alessandro Vesely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is still not clear why one would rewrite senders. SPF should work
if everybody takes the burden of declaring what are the mail servers
they use.
Suppose I have an account with the CPAN project and thus have the e-mail
address [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Pierre Ossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does courier handle SPF when mail come from backup MX:s?
I couldn't find anything in the documentation about this and the only mx
related code I found was for handling the mx-entries in the SPF record.
Adding the backup MX:s to the access list with
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Huh? Do I understand you right that you think adding SRS support to
Courier would unconditionally turn it into an open relay?
Pretty much. This has been discussed before.
Well, SRS is considered to be safe by the SPF project
Pierre Ossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current solution would be to turn of SPF checks for the mail servers
where you can receive relayed mail from. But this is not something
people are comfortable with if it is a public relaying service.
It is your _only_ choice if no sender rewriting is
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Ossman writes:
I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to
courier.
Since courier recently got SPF support I've been starting to add it to
the sites I administer. Unfortunatly I use forwarding in a number of
places
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Ossman writes:
I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to
courier.
[...]
Is this something that is going to be added in the near future? Or are
No. Because adding it will turn the mail server into an open relay.
Mark Constable wrote:
On Monday 15 November 2004 08:54, Julian Mehnle wrote:
If you are willing to install Courier::Filter (Perl 5.8 required),
you can try using this filter module for a while to see whether it
catches all the broken messages that you and your users have a
problem
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stan Ubuni writes:
I anxiously await your arrogant/elitist repsonse.
Here's my arrogant/elitist response:
[...]
Here, I'll even write the code for you:
#include stdio.h
void main()
{
int i;
for (i=0; i256; i++)
{
Mark Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the last 2 months we've been getting an increasing amount
of incoming messages with incomplete headers and an empty message
body. They prevent POP users from downloading their email. I
suspect we are not the only ones and was wondering if there was
Mark Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 15 November 2004 01:06, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I guess those of your users who are having problems with such
[empty-body] messages are using Outlook, right?
I have one example that appears to be a download attempt
from Mozilla so it may have
Kóczán Péter wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Kóczán Péter wrote:
Again. Is it somehow possible to filter thos messages who have null
body?
Please define to filter.
To filter = to deliver messages with null body into somewhere else.
You could try writing a maildrop filter which detects
Kóczán Péter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again. Is it somehow possible to filter thos messages who have null
body?
Please define to filter.
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
Hi Sam,
Bernard Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've finally installed [Courier::Filter 0.14]. This is what I shows up
in my maillog after I run /usr/local/courier/sbin/courierfilter start:
Nov 10 09:45:55 mail courierfilter: Starting pureperlfilter
Nov 10 09:45:55 mail courierfilter: exec:
Robert Pfister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got some users that keep adding singlequotes to their usernames.
I'm not sure how they manage it, but I suspect they are cutting
pasting from outlook, or something.
The result is, of course that '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' isn't the same as
[EMAIL
Robert Pfister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'd like to do is remove the outside most pairs of apostrophe's.
The logic being that the trailing apostrophe would cause the message to
be bounced anyhow.
If Sam Varshavchik changed Courier to do this, next week someone would
come and request that
Martijn Lievaart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
Sure, the client (MUA) could sent to the others and after the user
corrected the address send it to the address that was originally faulty.
It could even include the full cc list
Hi Robert, hi Sam,
Robert Pfister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Why can't your users' mail clients (or whatever produces those
misformatted e-mail addresses) just conform to the standards?
My previous attempts to get Microsoft to conform to standards haven't
been
Hi Sam,
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Now I fixed the bug in my code, I suggest clarifying the
courierfilter documentation. I would submit a patch if I knew what
the authoritative instance of the doc is -- there's at least a
manpage and an HTML file. Well, I guess you can
Hi all,
there's a minor bugfix release, 0.14, of Courier::Filter on CPAN[1].
The changes are:
* Added documentation for the test-filter-module and pureperlfilter
executables.
* test-filter-module:
- Fixed the command-line parsing and handling of control file names.
- Made the
Bernard Hurley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to be able to set up mailing systems on Debian GNU/Linux
boxes and I would like to use Courier because of its wide
range of features. I have installed all the Debian courier
packages version 0.37.3-2.5 [...]
Oh my. I recommend not using Debian
Grzegorz Janoszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Oh my. I recommend not using Debian Woody anymore, it's already
beyond ancient, as is version 0.37 of Courier. Try using a more
recent version of Courier (and maybe Debian). Debian/testing
contains
Tom Eicher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to tell courier-esmtpd to use smtp authentication when
sending out relayed mail?
Use the esmtpauthclient configuration file, which is described in the
`courier` manpage:
http://www.courier-mta.org/courier.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A completely different solution that more and more people use is not
have any backup MXen! Make all mailservers primary (same prio) and have
them all on site. If any of them fails you're covered, another will take
over. If your Internet connection fails, the sending
Robert Penz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
where can I find a documentation of the control file. I currently know
only that tags which are implemented in pythonfilter. I'm specially
searching for a way to detect the mails which are sent via smtp auth,
as I want to whitelist them.
Generally, the
Polarcom Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to blacklist messages with empty Subject field?
You could use Courier::Filter[1] and the included Header filter module to
match messages with empty subjects and reject those.
References:
1. http://search.cpan.org/dist/Courier-Filter
Arturo Buanzo Busleiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to deny relaying from a computer which sets it's hostname
to SOMENAME (fdns; $HOSTNAME ([ipaddr]) , etc). Even although random
valid SMTP AUTH is issued (free mail service), I want to deny relaying.
Is there any possible way of
I wrote:
Robert Penz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
where can I find a documentation of the control file. I currently know
only that tags which are implemented in pythonfilter. I'm specially
searching for a way to detect the mails which are sent via smtp auth,
as I want to whitelist them.
Hi all,
after several months I have finally been able to release[1] version 0.13
of Courier::Filter on CPAN.
The most important changes:
* This release fixes the mysterious ``Can't call method close on an
undefined value at Filter.pm line 299?? bug that caused
Courier::Filter to fail
1 - 100 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
