On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 07:11:51PM +0100, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
> One thing I have to try and figure out is how Spamassassin does the
> SPF checks. Does it look at all the Received: headers, and if at
> least one of them matches one of the SPF records, then it's all
> fine?
In an ideal world, I'd have a single dnslookup router that happily
delivered mail all day long. But host reputation is a fickle beast, and
it's painful to have mail sit around deferred or frozen until I get our IP
taken off the DNSBL list of the week.
As a solution to this game of whack-a-mole,
On 16/04/2023 20:22, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
On 16/04/2023 19:17, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
relay_to_compan1:
driver = manualroute
domains = company1.com
route_list = company1.com 192.168.100.10
transport = remote_relay_company1
host_find_failed = defer
Dňa 16. apríla 2023 20:28:30 UTC používateľ Lance Lovette via Exim-users
napísal:
>tls_certificate =
>/etc/letsencrypt/live/${readfile{/etc/mailname}{}}/fullchain.pem
I lost context, but content of /etc/mailname is in ETC_MAILNAME
macro on debian systems.
regards
--
Slavko
"Those options that undergo string expansion before use are marked with †."
Thanks! It's always the fine print that gets you :)
After further investigation (thanks -d+expand!), I must retract my earlier
statement about my readfile assignment not causing any issues. It was :)
╭considering:
On 16/04/2023 11:44, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
On 15/04/2023 23:31, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
you might be able to use cutthrough delivery from the front-end to the
real server, which might allow you to reject rather than bounce some
of the time; it might even help with
On 16/04/2023 19:17, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
relay_to_compan1:
driver = manualroute
domains = company1.com
route_list = company1.com 192.168.100.10
transport = remote_relay_company1
host_find_failed = defer
relay_to_compan2:
driver = manualroute
domains =
On 16/04/2023 19:35, Lance Lovette via Exim-users wrote:
That would be helpful. Can you point me to a reference?
https://exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-main_configuration.html#SECTalomo
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at
On 16/04/2023 11:04, Paul Muster via Exim-users wrote:
On 15.04.23 21:54, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
The "back-end" machines are physical machines, on regular
ADSL/VDSL/cable/fibre connections at various locations.
At the moment they send directly to the internet, which requires a
> I'm not seeing why the default of the "uname" result... is not sufficient
in that case.
Long story short, changing uname to be something other than the container
name will cause ripple effects in other places.
My ultimate goal with setting 'primary_hostname' is to control the host
name exposed
On 15/04/2023 23:16, Fabio Martins wrote:
solution inline
On 2023-04-15 17:05, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
On 15/04/2023 17:00, Fabio Martins wrote:
I believe you are trying to use the same IP address for the 3 exim
instances, otherwise the solution would be quite simple binding
On 15/04/2023 21:38, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
On 15/04/2023 13:53, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
Exim does talk the inbound-proxy protocol tha HAProxy apparently uses (or can use):
https://exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-proxies.html#SECTproxyInbound
On 16/04/2023 17:52, Lance Lovette wrote:
My goal is to have a single configuration file that can run across
different environments (dev/stage/live.)
I'm not seeing why the default of the "uname" result, used
if you don't set this option, is not sufficient in that case.
FWIW, the readfile
My goal is to have a single configuration file that can run across
different environments (dev/stage/live.)
I was really hoping Exim had an evaluate-once assignment operator like
the Makefile walrus (:=).
No problem, I'll come up with a different solution - an include with
macros or just a
On 2023-04-15, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
> On 15/04/2023 13:53, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
>> On 15/04/2023 12:53, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
>>> I have a number of Exim servers behind a NAT gateway (actually
>>> connected with vpn's to a cloud vps - but I'm
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
On 15/04/2023 23:31, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
you might be able to use cutthrough delivery from the front-end to the
real server, which might allow you to reject rather than bounce some of
the time; it might even help with
On 2023-04-15, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
> I have a number of Exim servers behind a NAT gateway (actually connected
> with vpn's to a cloud vps - but I'm hoping this is not relevant to this
> post). I would like the gateway to send incoming port 25 traffic to the
> correct Exim
On 15/04/2023 23:31, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
you might be able to use cutthrough delivery from the front-end to the
real server, which might allow you to reject rather than bounce some of the
time; it might even help with your SPF dilemma ?
That was my intention - so that the
On 15.04.23 21:54, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
The "back-end" machines are physical machines, on regular
ADSL/VDSL/cable/fibre connections at various locations.
At the moment
they send directly to the internet, which requires a static IP and PTR
record.
To solve all of the above
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
I don't know what sort of latency there will be between these machines,
but you might be able to use cutthrough delivery from the front-end to the
real server, which might allow you to reject rather than bounce some of the
time; it
20 matches
Mail list logo
