LuKreme wrote:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
Almost the same...
Join spam-l and ask this
naked PTR question. You will be clued.
What is
Hello
I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
actually I use :
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
\check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
on the mailhub which is not Internet visible but I would like to
reject with the MX machine to avoid transmission to the
On 2010-01-17 Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other
words, a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix
connects and receives acknowledgement from the remote
On 2010-01-18 Frank Bonnet wrote:
I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
actually I use :
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
\check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
on the mailhub which is not Internet visible but I would like to reject
with the MX
On 18/01/10 07:31, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other
words, a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix
connects and receives acknowledgement from the
Stefan Foerster:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
This is implemented by specifying FILTER actions with empty next-hop
destinations in access maps or header/body_checks, and by configuring
in master.cf one Postfix SMTP client for each SMTP source IP address,
where each client has its
Daniel L. Miller:
Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other words,
a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix connects and
receives acknowledgement from the remote site, and then
Wietse Venema:
Stefan Foerster:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
This is implemented by specifying FILTER actions with empty next-hop
destinations in access maps or header/body_checks, and by configuring
in master.cf one Postfix SMTP client for each SMTP source IP address,
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:49:49 +0100
Von: Michael Reck sir...@brauchmer.net
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
Hi List,
I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
DSPAM seems to use
Zitat von Patrick Ben Koetter p...@state-of-mind.de:
* Michael Reck sir...@brauchmer.net:
Hi List,
I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--with-userdir=) for various
functions which is not what i want. dspam also needs per user
Zitat von Steve stev...@gmx.net:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:49:49 +0100
Von: Michael Reck sir...@brauchmer.net
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
Hi List,
I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
The goal is simple - there are some people businesses my company
needs to correspond with no matter how strict my filter, and no
matter how badly the remote site is configured. Waiting to receive
a message carrying critical business information
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently existing within Postfix to accomplish this
with SQL, there is no need to use pcre. just do that in the SQL query to
avoid having to keep an external file up to date...
...except that the + (and everything between it and the @) is *not*
actually part of the email address. To use your address as an example:
When Postfix receives an
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
policy daemon doesn't need to have a big DNS mess to resolve all the
recipient MX ips.
MX
LuKreme put forth on 1/18/2010 12:46 AM:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
Do you use either of these restrictions?
reject_unknown_client_hostname
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:12:00AM -0800, Charles Boling wrote:
mouss:
with SQL, there is no need to use pcre. just do that in the SQL
query to avoid having to keep an external file up to date...
...except that the + (and everything between it and the @) is
*not* actually part of the
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
policy daemon doesn't need to have a big DNS mess to resolve all the
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently existing within Postfix to
Daniel L. Miller:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there is any method currently
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:40:40 +0100
Von: Michael Reck sir...@brauchmer.net
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
Zitat von Steve stev...@gmx.net:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 17 Jan
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 04:28:37PM +0100, Michael Reck wrote:
Anyway, our customers complaining the usual way ( to much spam in
my inbox...) and are not getting smarter (i don`t want to train
SA...) so i must bear the challenge :)
Such is the story with content filtering for spam control. It's
Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel L. Miller:
Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44:48PM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Daily scanning of logfiles does not accomplish this. Nor would even an
hourly scan - and constant logfile scanning strikes me as inelegant. If
there
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how,
currently, to implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing
sender validation into the policy daemon.
Right, IIUC what you're doing, you would have the policy
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how, currently, to
implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing sender validation into
the policy daemon. I don't see any way, for example, to call another
/dev/rob0 wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how,
currently, to implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing
sender validation into the policy daemon.
Right, IIUC what you're doing,
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:14:34AM -0800, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
But my primary issue is sender validation. I don't see how, currently, to
implement this as a policy daemon without re-writing sender validation into
the policy daemon. I don't see any way, for
Frank Bonnet put forth on 1/18/2010 4:19 AM:
Hello
I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
actually I use :
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
\check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
Do you want to reject an email address, or an IP address? If email
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
A point - and a good one for initialization of the whitelist. However,
this does not address the need to add new addresses to the list
automatically. Example - our company changes insurance brokers, and
needs to receive forms from the new
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
A point - and a good one for initialization of the whitelist. However,
this does not address the need to add new addresses to the list
automatically. Example - our company changes insurance brokers, and
needs to
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
The goal is simple - there are some people businesses my company
needs to correspond with no matter how strict my filter, and no
matter how badly the remote site is configured. Waiting to receive
a message carrying critical
On 18-Jan-2010, at 10:28, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
LuKreme put forth on 1/18/2010 12:46 AM:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
Do you use either of
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:54PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:01:45PM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
I think I prefer a separate daemon that tails postfix log and greps all
to=xxx, relay=xxx info and passes it to the policy daemon. That way the
policy daemon doesn't
On 18-Jan-2010, at 11:37, Victor Duchovni wrote:
This thread is NOT about address validation, it is about automatic
whitelisting of addresses (as senders) that are observed in outgoing
mail as recipients. No validation is required.
This should be pretty easy to add into a greylisting service
The following solution solves 99% of the problem:
- IF mail is from a local (or authenticated) client
- AND the sender has already passed reject_unlisted_sender
- THEN store the (sender, recipient) pair in a whitelist.
This can be done with trivial modification of an existing greylisting
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 1:30 PM:
If you _need_ a home brew solution _now_, start small and inelegant,
getting
most of the functionality you want/need. This can be done with simple
scripts
and cron. After it's working relatively well, _then_ spend time
creating the
elegant
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:49 -0800
Von: Daniel L. Miller dmil...@amfes.com
An: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
A
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:05, Steve stev...@gmx.net wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:49 -0800
Von: Daniel L. Miller dmil...@amfes.com
An: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if you
want my modifications, contact me off-list.
I'm surprised you actually mentioned a solution whose core feature is
challenge/response. C/R is one of those cures
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if
you
want my modifications, contact me off-list.
I'm surprised you actually mentioned a
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if you
want my
On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:30, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
I have achieved this
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:17:43 -0500
Von: Mark Nernberg (gmail account) marknernb...@gmail.com
An: Steve stev...@gmx.net
CC: postfix-users@postfix.org postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
On Jan 18, 2010, at
--
sent from my mobile phone
On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:54, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:06:13 -0500
Von: Mark Nernberg (gmail account) marknernb...@gmail.com
An: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
CC: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
--
sent from my
Charles Boling a écrit :
with SQL, there is no need to use pcre. just do that in the SQL query to
avoid having to keep an external file up to date...
...except that the + (and everything between it and the @) is *not*
actually part of the email address.
of course the + is part of the email
Dear all,
Do you have any way to check domain of email and IP of sending host before
relay it? I'm trying to setup a gateway which accept relay for some IP
address, and make sure this IP can only send email from domain(s) it owned.
TIA,
giobuon
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:56:46AM +0700, Tr???n Tr???ng T???n wrote:
Do you have any way to check domain of email and IP of sending host before
relay it? I'm trying to setup a gateway which accept relay for some IP
address, and make sure this IP can only send email from domain(s) it owned.
My mail server has been getting a fair amount of spam hits that have been
rejected but the sender address is spoofed with the recipient's address.
This generates an NDR to the recipient with the spam. I would like to
suppress NDRs of this kind but not legitimate NDRs.
Regards,
David Koski
Dear list,
I am trying to drop outgoing emails having particular email-id in its
[TO] field. Say myn...@domain1.com and myna...@domain2.com, hence any
mail destined for myn...@domain1.com or myna...@domain2.com will be
dropped . To achieve this I have made a file sender_reject with
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 09:56 +0700, Trần Trọng Tấn wrote:
Dear all,
Do you have any way to check domain of email and IP of sending host
before relay it? I'm trying to setup a gateway which accept relay for
some IP address, and make sure this IP can only send email from
domain(s) it owned.
52 matches
Mail list logo
