Hello.
I'm a Debian user battling with Exim 4.72 backported to lenny.
I've read the documentation over and over
(http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch40.html
section 36 to 40), googled myself half to death, scoured the mailing
list, and yet ratelimiting remains black box mag
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:07, Jeremy Harris wrote:
>
> Are you using ratelimits anywhere else?
No, this is the first attempt ever to use ratelimiting, and Debian's
standard configuration does not activate or provide inactive rules for
that, at least not in lenny (old-stable).
> The ratelimit db
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:13, Todd Lyons wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>
>> warn ratelimit = 0 / 1h / strict
(...)
> When you pasted the logged line that said 60.1/1h, that was created
> from the above line, right?
Yes, that is c
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 17:27, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:07, Jeremy Harris wrote:
>> The ratelimit db key
>> is built only with the parameters you give (minus the limit value).
>> I'm wondering if you have a key collision; if so you c
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:57, WJCarpenter wrote:
>
> Port 8111 is for people who need to escape firewalls. My user's telnet was
> to port 587. I've tried all of 25, 8111, and 587 with equivalent results
> (different from his results). I've asked my user to try port 8111 but don't
> have those
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 13:32, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> While that's perfectly valid, there are any number of reasons why a
> given source address would be able to connect to your secondary MX but
> not the primary. Almost none of those reasons are under your control,
> nor that of the source. If yo
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:21, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 19:13 +, Always Learning wrote:
>>
>> I thought the only RFC required header was Message-ID: ?
>
> That's only a SHOULD.
When I was young, a "SHOULD" wasn't only an "only", it was a pretty
big deal, it was a MUST wit
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 16:25, Narcis Garcia - GiLUG
wrote:
> I send mail from an Exim4 installation, and it's rejected from some MTA
> servers with:
> "Helo command rejected: Host not found"
> because Exim announces with the short hostname instead of the specified in
> /etc/mailname (FQDN)
>
> If
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 14:41, CyberMauher wrote:
> Hola, mi ISP bloquea los puertos 25 y 465. Entonces quisiera saber si puedo
> usar otro puerto que yo configure.
According to Google translate, this means:
"Hello, my ISP blocks ports 25 and 465. So I wonder if I can
use another port that I set.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:05, Mark Elkins wrote:
> I'm one of those perverse people who has three laptops, iPad and Smart
> phone - and a fixed work station. iMAP means I have the same e-mail on
> all devices - and as 'SENT' is shared - all my sent email is available
> on all machines. Couldn't li
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:01, Steinar Bang wrote:
> IMO POP is a mess that's better left on history's scrapheap. Even if
> you are just using POP-functionality, IMAP is a better protocol.
>
It might be a "better protocol" (though I can't really see how it is that,
when you're just using POP fun
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:53, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> Except that RFC5322 forbids multiple Subject: headers.
Except that RFC 5322 is a draft standard, and has not yet fully obsoleted
RFC 2822, nor has the flow of erratas quite ceased.
> So, it may produce unexpected results.
That it may, re
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 13:56, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> Then I'm confused by "Obsoleted by: 5322" at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822.
>
> And by "Obsoletes: 2822" at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
>
And possibly by what "draft standard" means. No worries, it essentially just
means that it
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:04, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
Hello!
>
> I would like to know if this configuration sample is for Exim 3 or Exim
> 4: http://www.bastard.net/~kos/mailrouter/sample-configure
>
> How to know?
> It's from http://www.bastard.net/~kos/mailrouter/
>
If
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:31, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> My guess is that Google are allowing senders with SPF passes some slack on
> other checks. So, you'd just want to publish a record for example.org.
>
On a general basis, I recommend against using SPF, but if one "must" use
SPF, remember to NOT s
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 02:38, Ted Cooper wrote:
> On 05/07/11 21:54, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > On a general basis, I recommend against using SPF, but if one "must" use
> > SPF, remember to NOT set it restrictively.
> >
> > That is: never, ever use "
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:27, Mike Cardwell
wrote:
>
> SPF causes mail delivery problems in some scenarios. I don't think
> anyone would deny that. From my experience, in practice, your email is
> more likely to be rejected because of a false positive on a spam
> filtering system than it is to be
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 13:39, W B Hacker wrote:
> Perhaps a 'Senior Moment' here - but I *thought* DKIM was the fix to (some
> of) the SPF shortcomings, and had become the more widely adopted toolset?
>
Yep. SPF was pretty much a lame duck from the get-go, but DKIM solves more
of the relevant pe
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:40, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> Since few message paths involve both forwarding AND a mailing list,
How few is "few", do you have any statistics?
Are they few enough to warrant broken email?
Even the difference between a mailing list and a forwarding is tenuous at
best.
It
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 16:01, Martin Nicholas <
subscriptions.priv...@mgn.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I'd say that SPAM filtering causes more lost mail: silently discarded,
> placed
> in the SPAM folder never to be seen again, than trouble with SPF.
You're forgetting that several of the "spam filtered" m
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:48, Always Learning wrote:
> Surely the mailing list application should delete subscriptions when
> deliveries bounce for a pre-determined number of occasions ?
>
No.
The mailing list application might disable the subscription, that is, set it
not to receive further m
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 15:39, Jeff Lasman wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2011 04:12:14 AM Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>
> > The mailing list application might disable the subscription, that is, set
> > it not to receive further messages, after too many such bounces. Mailman
&
Darnit, I forgot "reply to all", and accidentally just sent my response to
Ian Eiloart. Sorry about that.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:59, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> > The problem is that Exchange doesn't quote phrase parts correctly in
> various
> > headers such as From:, To: and Cc:. For example:
>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 00:50, Frank Elsner wrote:
> One idea might be to send bounces and only bounces from a different
> interface/IP.
> This avoids blacklisting of the interface/IP used to send all other
> "normal" mail.
>
>
That is a decent way of mitigating the risks, but I don't see how to d
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:58, Mikhail Lischuk wrote:
> As far as I
> understand, ratelimit limits my users, not my submission to smarthost.
>
Ratelimiting limits the rate based on the criteria you choose.
If the criterium is an IP address, then that IP address will be limited.
If you run auth
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 15:39, Mikhail Lischuk wrote:
> But I describe situation where I am client, not
> server. Will ratelimit still help me? Even when connection is outgoing?
>
I'm sorry, I misunderstood. :)
If you limit the rate at which your Exim instance accepts messages from your
regular
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 22:39, Ian Porter wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to use the ratelimit to deny any more than 10 emails per
> second. I have tried adding this to the
> /etc/exim4/exim4.conf.template and also within the
> /etc/exim4/conf.d/acl/10_exim4_config-deny-ratecheck
>
> acl_deny_r
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:23, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hi there!
>
> we've some clients sending messages to umlaut (UTF8) domains. As far as I
> know,
> the client is responsible for converting any UTF8 domain into the punycode
> form.
>
> It seems, that there are clients (squirre
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
Hi there!
> I have a feeling or worry that since Philip Hazel has retired, Exim may
> see much less development and go into a kind of "maintenance mode". I think
> it's in danger of falling by the wayside if that happens.
>
> I w
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Muhammad Irfan wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hello!
>
> I have couple of requirements.
>
> 1- I need to restrict no. of recipients in email client
> (outlook/thunderbird). Let say a user can't send email if he has no. of
> recipients greater than 100 regardless in To, CC,
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I have a few weird ideas and would need a smart DNS server of some sort to
> pull it off. Basically looking for a programmable backend that might do DNS
> lookups itself.
>
> Here's a possible example. There are servers out there that return
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
>
> Technically I already knew what you mean;-) But usually they resolve to
> 127.0.0.1 or ::1. That's why the exim default config already blacklists
> them. I was interested in the domain names themselves resolving to other
> bogus IPs. Do
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Matt wrote:
> When I have an email account with a compromised password that is
> pumping out junk with auth SMTP the sending IP is virtually always in
> XBL. When I have legitimate senders using auth SMTP they are
> extremely rarely listed.
>
> So, I feel that if
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> That doesn't work when you have several tens of thousands of accounts.
> Going through that many maildirs would take a long time and cause a lot of
> trashing on storage. It would never finish in 5 minutes and would be
> running continuous
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Cyborg wrote:
> That's amateur spaming .. a nasty spam scripts forks itself of and uses
> it's own SMTP-engine to send mails. They do it for exactly the reason to
> hide the identity of the account they hacked. It's even worse sometimes,
> when the hacker stores
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Cyborg wrote:
> --uid-owner 0-93
>
> In my case, i can use it, as no other daemon whos executing user scripts
> is running between root and exim . Others may have to use three lines of
> iptables, allowing 0 and 93 , but deny anyone else.
>
This also appears to
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 09:47:35PM +0200, Mark Elkins wrote:
> > What if exim did some internal TNEF translation on demand, as in for
> > local delivery, preparing the e-mail ready for reading?
> >
> > The alternative is to patch every e-mail r
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>
> What if the client is outside the LAN??
>
Uhm, there is only a problem if the client is sending "outside the LAN", so
those are exacty the instances where the recipient reasonably responds:
"Hi The Doctor, I cannot read your attachment"
and
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Mark Elkins wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 08:23 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> >
> > I think doing in-MTA translation of MS-TNEF is completely insane.
>
> I think trying to convince M$ users not to send MS-TNEF is even more
> insane.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, wrote:
> Some honest users need to send messages with From not equal to
> smtp auth username. For example ...@ieee.org or ...-ow...@yahoogroups.com
> Such services forward incoming mail
> but don't offer their own relays for outgoing mail.
>
I've been considering
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Cyborg wrote:
> Am 11.12.2012 16:42, schrieb Jan Ingvoldstad:
>
>> 1. Permit accounts to send on behalf of its associated domainname.
>>
>
> IMHO, it would be enough to check if the sender domain match the account
> domains.
>
Now y
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM, soumya tr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How can I change the envelop from address to actual header form?
>
As I read your explanation below, you want to rewrite the envelope from
address (which _is_ the actual from address) to the slightly more
unreliable address in the From
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Marcin Mirosław wrote:
> W dniu 04.01.2013 10:13, eximmail pisze:
> Hi!
> > I am getting this in my log files a lot and am wondering why?
> >
> >
> > no IP address found for host phpbbspprt840.gmail.com (during SMTP
> > connection from unlocktheinbox.com (mail.unl
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Frank DeChellis wrote:
> Hi there,
>
Hello!
>
> I run Exim, qpopper and UW IMAP .
>
> I have a POP account running on my laptop with a ton of folders and old
> email. I have questions on what will happen if I convert to IMAP. Will it
> delete the files on my
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Michael Fischer v. Mollard
wrote:
>
> Hello,
Hi!
>
>
> there is a strange difference in Exim's handling of empty local parts
> »@example.net« and »""@example.net«:
>
> mail from: <>
> 250 OK
> rcpt to:<@example.net>
> 501 <@example.net>: no local part
> rcpt to:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Graeme Fowler wrote:
>
> I'm slightly late to the list party on this one as I've been running
> after errant racing cars all weekend, but (as I commented on the G+
> thread for this) the default configuration's RCPT ACL would reject an
> inbound email address cont
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> Being open source, of course, Allan is quite at liberty to change the code
> before compiling. Or pay someone to do it, if he thinks that any of the
> rest of the code is useful. Or use another MTA.
>
If I understand Allen Bell correctly, the
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Here's an idea I'm working on. Wondering if anyone else is interested in
> participating.
>
> As you all know there are a lot of SMTP servers (inbound) where there is o
> authentication option. And we all know that there are lots of hackers and
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Todd Lyons wrote:
>
> Even better: accept that 1%, store that info, and then wait for IP's
> to connect using that username and password combination (and either
> reject it or blackhole it, your choice) and use long delays for
> systems that connect with that user/
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
>
> That seems like a backwrds step by them 456+ssl is deprecated.
>
For something that is deprecated, mail clients seem way too eager to use
that rather than 587 + STARTSSL.
Where I work, we actually had to start supporting it recently, thoug
Just some clarifications, according to my understanding of how Exim works
on a Debian system.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2013-06-10 at 11:45 -0400, eelboy wrote:
> > Next task will be to learn the non-Debian configuration syntax of exim4
> > (sometimes that dpkg-r
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 09:59 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>> I have this to slow fast senders.
>>
>> warn ratelimit = 100 / 1h / per_rcpt / strict
>> delay = ${eval: ${sg{$sender_rate}{[.].*}{}} -
>> $sender_rate_limit }s
>>
>> I would like to NO
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, wrote:
>
>
> Did you ever see a botnet to use SMTP and IMAP/POP3 for the same account
> simultaneously? For what?
>
I have not seen quite simultaneous use, but I have seen such use, yes.
Some botnets are used for spamming/phishing, and the IMAP/POP3 accounts are
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Marcin Gryszkalis wrote:
> As I dislike the idea of parsing log files (takes too long etc.) - but
> another idea came to my mind after reading your advise - I can save
> pair(pid,autenticated_id) to database with pid as unique key (to solve
> pid reuse) and simple
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James R Grinter wrote:
>
> just send the kill signal as the Exim user. Then you don't need to worry
> too much about whether it's stopped being an Exim process.
>
You still need to worry about it being another Exim process.
This may cause undesired side effects f
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Adam Spragg wrote:
> Hi Exim Users,
>
> I'm looking into getting Exim to use a TLS certificate.
>
> Looking through the documentation, it seems that the private key file for
> the
> certificate needs to have read access by the relevant exim group, and also
> must
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Adam Spragg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-09-10 08:30, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Adam Spragg wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not happy having an unprotected private key lying about anywhere,
> even
> >
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi Srinivas,
>
> Am Mi den 25. Sep 2013 um 8:49 schrieb srinivas kamani:
> > I need to block sender domains in exim4. We are getting lot of spam
> emails
> > from some particular domains
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Chuck Peters wrote:
>
> I am running Ubuntu's 13.04 packaged 4.80-7ubuntu1 and I want to setup a
> smarthost from home to my VPS using my SixXS IPv6 tunnel. Internet
> access at home is a dynamic IPv4 cable modem and the IPv6 tunnel allows
> static IPv6 addresses.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chuck Peters wrote:
> I tried that, and other variations, and it's not working.
Okay, here is the complete update-exim4.conf.conf, redacted:
dc_eximconfig_configtype='internet'
dc_other_hostnames='myhost.example
#dc_local_interfaces='127.0.0.1 ; ::1 ; 71.19.158.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison <
a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Breaking opportunistic TLS is not good, but the message was
> available in plain at any intermediate hub so any sensitive
> message should have been encrypted anyway.
>
TLS protects metadata, which
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
> No doubt the same thing is available in TTY based editors, but I'm too
> easily pleased to do the hard yards. someone may have done an exim
> mode for vi or emacs
>
>
I've usually invoke conf-mode or shell-script-mode, which works well enoug
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
>
> This is not usable with CRAM-MD5. CRAM-MD5 requires access to the
> cleartext password. If you use DIGEST-MD5 instead, then you can use a
> stored form which is a particular MD5-transformation of the password,
> but still not the current
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:15 PM, basti wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mail_servers#Authentication
>
Those are servers.
MUA = mail user agent, e.g. (Apple) Mail, Outlook, Thunderbird …
What I was looking for was probably this depressing table, then:
http://en.wikipedia.org
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Rob Gunther wrote:
> I was reading the stats of email to spam traps over at abuseat.org.
>
> They talk about getting an average of 5000 emails a second over a day,
> being 432 million messages a day. Those numbers come from comments on
> their stats page.
>
> The
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> Michael Fischer v. Mollard wrote, on 25/02/14 16:59:
> > Received: from [10.0.0.100] by gen3.XXX.com id K1sdIgJUfdo1;
> > Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:56:59 -0600
> > Message-ID: <...@gen3.XXX.com>
>
> I see those, too. But I've no sample yet.
>
>
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Yves Goergen
wrote:
>
>
> That's an LTS version of Ubuntu. I use it because I don't want to update
> the whole system every few months. The next update will be to 14.04 some
> time later this year when it's available.
>
s/later/earlier/, it was released over two wee
The relevancy for this mailing list is waning fast. :)
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Chris Knipe wrote:
>
> Again, I am not fighting or disputing this - frankly, I agree. But
> using DEA's to for example, gain free access (trial) to NetFlix - this
> is what I am having issues with. Sign up fo
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Don't, never ever, accept mails to not existing users and don't accept
> mails to existing users where you want to prevent them from receiving it
> for any policy reason (like spamchecking or virus checking). If you take
> the mails you are
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Dean Hamstead wrote:
> DKIM signing seems to help Gmail accept emails
As does having correct SPF records. Regrettably.
--
Jan
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wik
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
>
>
> that will work for CC and BCC addresses too, but only on the
> originating server
>
> BCC can only be checked on the originating server
>
That's a bit imprecise.
I would say that the contents of the original Bcc field is ultimately only
kn
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Odhiambo Washington
wrote:
>
>
> exipick -iz | xargs exim -Mrm
Lacking that famous "like" and "+1", I want to point out that the above
answer is the solution that best fits the problem as described.
The other suggestions are regrettably not good enough for the O
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 25/02/15 15:19, Jim Trigg wrote:
> > While the idea of a monolithic configuration file is fine in general,
> > this is a specific case where a separate file is indicated.
> > I'd have to do separate routers for each domain in which jtrigg
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2015-02-26 at 08:01 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > I'm not sure that I've ever seen a paid Exim consultant. :)
>
> https://github.com/Exim/exim/wiki/Commercial
>
> > The great thing about farming deci
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
>
> If you cannot assume any backend MUA cooperation or setup, I
> believe that your only completely reliable choice is to rewrite the
> origin address of incoming email in the MTA (in both the envelope
> and in the From:/Reply-To:/etc heade
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Marco Gaiarin wrote:
>
> Trying to optimize some traffic, i've looked about an SMTP extension that
> do
> ''on the fly'' compression of traffic, clearly eventually before encrypting
> it.
>
> eg, IMAP protocol specification have a COMPRESS extension.
>
>
> Seems t
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Marco Gaiarin wrote:
>
>
> Ah. Someone can explain me because other protocols, eg IMAP, have a
> compression extension, while SMTP no?
>
>
It's not the protocol which has the extension, but the extension was
written for the protocol.
The distinction is important,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 19/03/15 19:07, Marc Baasten wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have to look up allot of e-mail addresses in the log files, is it
>> possible to feed exigrep with a input file ( maybe csv style ) with these
>> e-mail addresses
>> and have the
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Marc Haber
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:15:05 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann
> wrote:
> >Headers add "X-torres-Spam-Score: -4.2\n-4.4\n"
>
> The problem is that a header line beginning with "-" is regarded as
> beginning of the body, at least by mutt.
The pr
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ajit Mhatre wrote:
>
> i am having a problem in *exim4* ,that is* /etc/exim4/password.client*
> file contain *email id* and *password* . The both email id and password in
> Plain text format. so anyone can acess the password.client file can get my
> password.
> S
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Marc Haber
wrote:
>
> This applies to exim as server. He is using exim as a client, which
> _needs_ the plain-text password on the client side.
>
Egads, you're right, of course.
Sorry for the answer that turned out to be wildly unhelpful.
--
Jan
--
## List detai
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Cyborg wrote:
> > Hi guys,
>
> > did anyone ever tried to extend the SMTP protocol to something like this
> ?
>
> > HELO clienthostname
> > 250 OK
> > HOST maildomain.de
> > 250 OK
> > STARTTLS
> >
> > and getting the correct certifi
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Marc Haber
wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:12:51 +0300, "Dzmitry Shykuts"
> wrote:
> >### transport/30_exim4-config_maildir_virtual
> >#
>
> Just for the record and as a hint for those who might want to help,
> this transport is not
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Heiko Schlittermann
wrote:
> Tim Watts (Fr 03 Jul 2015 14:43:39 CEST):
> > No matter - I'll write one from scratch - it will take less effort :)
>
When you run the update-exim4.conf command, it creates a regular Exim
configuration, placed in /var/lib/exim4/config
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Evgeniy Berdnikov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 04:52:04PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Heiko Schlittermann >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Tim Watts (Fr 03 Jul 2015 14:43:39 CEST):
> > >
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
>
> Anyway - problem solved, in as much as there is not quick and easy way to
> parse /var/lib/exim4/config.autogenerated down to it's expanded form which
> would probably reduce the 800+ line file I'm looking at to less than half!
>
That's correct
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi,
>
> No comment to ECDH itself, but:
>
> Am Mo den 7. Mär 2016 um 9:50 schrieb Renaud Allard:
> > openssl_options = +no_compression +cipher_server_preference
> +single_dh_use
> > +sin
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Thomas Wilhelm
wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> Situation:
>
> we want to send emails to some domains only via IPv4 and to other domains
> via ipv4 and ipv6.
>
> I tried to use the "interface"-value in the transport-section, but it
> didn't work.
>
> I set an ip for the infe
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 11:29 -0400, Dave Lugo wrote:
>
> > Yes, you should have some way to override the missing rDNS check. But
> > rejecting on missing rDNS is mostly safe, in my opinion and experience.
>
> Agreed. Only positive action
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
...
When I send something in private mail, it is extremely rude to post it
on-list. Please don't do that.
--
Jan
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:52 AM, James Gibbard
wrote:
> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-log_files.html
>
>
> "queue_time: The amount of time the message has been in the queue on
> the local host is logged as QT= on delivery (=>) lines, for
> example, QT=3m45s. The cloc
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Felipe Gasper
wrote:
> SNI is concerned strictly with the domain name, whereas virtual hosting
> (as I’ve seen it) concerns content.
>
> Apache’s SNI configuration is poorly conceived, in my opinion. It forces
> all domains on a given virtual host to use the same
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Felipe Gasper
wrote:
I've taken the discussion of the fine details of web configuration off-list.
> > Exim's approach is currently a bit too monolithic to be usable for mass
> > hosting of many domains with separate certificates, separate
> > configurations, and
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Shamim Shahriar
wrote:
> Dear List members, good morning.
>
> I am a little stuck with a strange request from my line manager, and no
> amount of google search yielded any usable result. So, I would like to
> request some help / pointer
>
> I have been told that I
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Tom Preissler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently setup SPF/DKIM/DMARC on my mail server, so far quite happy
> with it and Exim. I have some commercial domains on my server and these
> were using my "private" domain and IP for emailling out. As I didn't
> want to get my "
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 2:35 PM Cyborg via Exim-users
wrote:
> Am 26.08.21 um 11:38 schrieb Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 10:57:49AM +0200, Cyborg via Exim-users wrote:
> >> My actual problem is to build the content of local_domains from DNS IN
> MX
> >> Records. T
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 3:24 PM Evgeniy Berdnikov via Exim-users <
exim-users@exim.org> wrote:
>
> If somebody change MX to other host, he should think also how to handle
> multiple mailboxes (hosted on "old" place and on "new" one),
> and what to do with already stored mails.
>
Yes, this is s
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 6:35 PM Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming via
Exim-users wrote:
>
> The recipient domain is hosted in the Exchange server. Please read
> below for the Exim Smarthost which my boss had configured. I still do
> not fully understand the roles and purposes of a smarthost. Please
> 17. apr. 2023 kl. 14:44 skrev Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users
> :
>
> I couldn't agree more. I am permanently scarred emotionally from installing
> and configuring SpamAssassin for the first time - and even after years of
> working with it I don't feel like I've managed to tame it :-)
Here’
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Ajay Kajla via Exim-users <
exim-users@exim.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to setup following exim filter but it's not working, assuming
> example.com is my domain and I want any outgoing mail from my server
> containing some key-work in BCC should also get deliv
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
