Am 26.12.2009 15:20, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Robert Schetterer:
Hi @ll,
merry X-mas
i have a webserver with some customers
using binary sendmail command deliver out mail to local postfix from the
www-data apache with i.e perl scripts, by ignorance of the customers the
often dont debug their
Hallo,
On Sunday 27 December 2009 00:40:03 Wietse Venema wrote:
Jan Lühr:
virtual_alias_domains = v50993.topnetworks.de
virtual_alias_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-aliases.cf
v50993.topnetworks.de is listed in virtual_alias_domains.
Therefore, all users in that domain must exist
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:48 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com replied:
I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent
valid address harvesting, so if 5321 or any other RFC requires
accepting VRFY then we are all out of RFC compliance.
QUOTE
3.5.3. Meaning of VRFY
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
With smtpd_helo_required = yes, the Postfix SMTP server requires
HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I understand the RFC it
should not be necessary for
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:10:53 +0100
Philippe Cerfon philc...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
With smtpd_helo_required = yes, the Postfix SMTP server requires
HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
I've just
Philippe Cerfon:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
With smtpd_helo_required = yes, the Postfix SMTP server requires
HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I understand the RFC it
should
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 06:10:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema
wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
I don't wanna be nit-picking,.. but as I read through rfc 5321 right
now, I found some other places where postfix might be not stricly
speaking
Quoting John Peach post...@johnpeach.com:
No it should not - they know. The RFCs were written way before the
problems we have now. Feel free to update the RFCs if you so wish.
ok,... The problem is however, that it's quite difficult for normal
users to find restrictions which are more strict
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
christoph.anton.mitte...@physik.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
Regards,
Philippe
Uhm?! Aren't you Christoph? :-P
The bad face of identity theft ^^
Philippe.
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Without sending EHLO the client cannot know that the server supports
ETRN, AUTH, etc., therefore such clients are not compliant. Perhaps
some study of RFC 1869 is in order.
Ah,.. well ok,.. so far I just read the rfc5321
Quoting Philippe Cerfon philc...@googlemail.com:
Regards,
Philippe
Uhm?! Aren't you Christoph? :-P
The bad face of identity theft ^^
Oops,.. ^^ That comes from not cleanly removing quotes ^^
Cheers,
Chris.
This message was sent
Hello.
In lasts days one spammer had fun with my email address sending me
hundresds of emails, most of them rejected by postfix anti-spam
measures, but not all.
I will explain the spammer send from internet (without authentication):
from: websurfer at navegants.com
to: websurfer at
On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no
legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent
valid
Josep M. a écrit :
Hello.
In lasts days one spammer had fun with my email address sending me
hundresds of emails, most of them rejected by postfix anti-spam
measures, but not all.
I will explain the spammer send from internet (without authentication):
from: websurfer at navegants.com
Michael a écrit :
Hello all,
I am transistioning an ISP from Sendmail to Postfix with MySQL backend.
Mostly this has gone smoothly except that one of the curve balls I have been
thrown is in respect of their use of the Alias file as follows:
username username, email address etc...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers li...@planetcobalt.net wrote:
On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no
legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no legit,
nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent valid
address
Hello.
Thanks!...Your tip Works great!
One question more: You said .example.com (with point) What is the
differenceincludes subdomains?
== sender_reject
example.com REJECT authentication required
.example.com REJECT authentication required
Thanks
Josep
El dom, 27-12-2009
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to
prevent valid address harvesting,
Which, of course, is utterly pointless.
HELO example.org
MAIL
On 2009-12-27 Josep M. wrote:
One question more: You said .example.com (with point) What is
the differenceincludes subdomains?
man 5 access
| domain.tld
| Matches domain.tld.
|
| The pattern domain.tld also matches subdomains, but only when
| the string
Hi.
I'm still trying to understand some things, so perhaps some of you
could help me.
1) As far as I understood the address rewriting manual, rewriting
(including the app...@origin and append.domain) happens in
cleanup/trivial-rewrite, right?
But I have the impression that at least some
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers li...@planetcobalt.net wrote:
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to
prevent valid
On Dec 27, 2009, at 4:14 PM, John Peach wrote:
502 5.5.1 VRFY command is disabled
just tells you that VRFY has been disabled; not the validity of the
address.
Far be it from me to speak for Ansgar, but on my postfix server, if VRFY
doesn't work, it's trivial to just say HELO/MAIL
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the big difference
when it comes to address verification. Regardless of whether you use
VRFY or MAIL FROM/RCPT TO/QUIT, if the address is invalid the
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:39:35 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
502 5.5.1 VRFY command is disabled
just tells you that VRFY has been disabled; not the validity of the
address.
You're missing the point. When you find that VRFY is
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Satish Kumar P wrote:
We are noticing couple of strange problems with postfix in our
environment. They are as follows:
[ ... ]
Your problem description is useful, but actual logging that corresponds
to your situation and the output of 'postconf -n' are required. Please
figured it out -- just after sending this. isn't that always the way?
i didn't have recipient_delimiter set on the MX host.
On December 28, 2009 1:05:09 AM -0500 Frank Cusack fcus...@fcusack.com
wrote:
I can't get the relay_recipient_maps lookup to ignore the address
extension part of a
Is the following configuration directives supported out of the box or do these
require a 3rd party patch? I obtained these from another site, however it
made reference to an RPM file, whereas I am using source so it wasn't clear.
virtual_mailbox_limit = 104857600
virtual_mailbox_limit_override
28 matches
Mail list logo
