On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 05:56:31PM +0530, Mayuresh wrote:
> In rejectall
> /./ REJECT 550 5.1.1
>
> Now gmail does not complain. However I still don't know why it still shows
> 554 5.7.1 first and then 550 5.1.1
Dropped the word REJECT and now it works fine.
Mayuresh
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 08:34:21AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> The only way I know is through an access(5) map. But I'm not sure if it
> can be done with this specific use case.
I replaced `reject' with a regexp in class definition:
insiders_only = check_sender_access
On Jan 18, 2019 8:16 AM, Mayuresh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 08:03:41AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > > 554 5.7.1
> >
> > Seems like 550 would be a better error code for this situation.
>
> I was trying to set that (as I noticed gmail didn't complain for a mail
> that was bounced
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 08:03:41AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > 554 5.7.1
>
> Seems like 550 would be a better error code for this situation.
I was trying to set that (as I noticed gmail didn't complain for a mail
that was bounced "normally" - such as non existent id).
But struggling to
Am 18. Januar 2019 14:49:15 MEZ schrieb Tobias Ulmer :
>On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT
>& Internet) wrote:
>> The security footprint is very good.
>
>https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10919/product_id-19563/Exim-Exim.html
I know the
On Jan 18, 2019 7:41 AM, Mayuresh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 06:45:06AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> > I think you should post the logs from your postfix test with Gmail
> > issue. I bet someone here knows an option to correct it.
>
> Not much I can see. I think it has more to do with
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 02:49:15PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
> Internet) wrote:
> > The security footprint is very good.
>
> https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10919/product_id-19563/Exim-Exim.html
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
Internet) wrote:
> The security footprint is very good.
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10919/product_id-19563/Exim-Exim.html
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 06:45:06AM -0600, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> I think you should post the logs from your postfix test with Gmail
> issue. I bet someone here knows an option to correct it.
Not much I can see. I think it has more to do with the error code
interpretation by gmail. For other
On Jan 18, 2019 2:08 AM, Mayuresh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
> Internet) wrote:
> > We use EXIM since decades now from small satellite mailer setups to very
> > large ISP setups after migrated from sendmail and postfix as they brought
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT &
Internet) wrote:
> We use EXIM since decades now from small satellite mailer setups to very
> large ISP setups after migrated from sendmail and postfix as they brought our
> hardware down in performance with heavy mail
>A quick search shows exim as the main alternative. I am looking for
>efficiency and if possible clearer semantics (than postfix!) of the
>configuration files.
We use EXIM since decades now from small satellite mailer setups to very large
ISP setups after migrated from sendmail and postfix as
Short story:
A quick search shows exim as the main alternative. I am looking for
efficiency and if possible clearer semantics (than postfix!) of the
configuration files.
Please do suggest alternatives.
Long story:
There is a separate mail thread in which I am sharing my experience of
setting
13 matches
Mail list logo
