Le 12/09/2010 10:33, Ralph Seichter a écrit :
On 12.09.10 01:38, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Am I missing something that's preventing you from using header_checks
for your purposes?
The thread http://marc.info/?l=postfix-usersm=128370729710827w=2 led
to the understanding that using header_checks --
mouss put forth on 9/12/2010 3:46 AM:
=== header_checks_submission.pcre:
/^Received:\s*from\s+\S+\s+\(\S+\s+\[192\.168\.1\.\d+\]\)\s+by\s+your\.server\.example\s+\(Postfix\)/
IGNORE
Isn't this a bit heavy mouss? All he really needs to match is the
RFC1918 address, yes? Something like
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 9/12/2010 5:08 AM:
mouss put forth on 9/12/2010 3:46 AM:
=== header_checks_submission.pcre:
/^Received:\s*from\s+\S+\s+\(\S+\s+\[192\.168\.1\.\d+\]\)\s+by\s+your\.server\.example\s+\(Postfix\)/
IGNORE
Isn't this a bit heavy mouss? All he really needs to
On 12.09.10 10:46, mouss wrote:
Received headers should not be included in the DKIM signature. so
removing them won't invalidate DKIM.
If you have a look at my message which you quoted, you'll see
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=seichter.de; h=
On 12.09.10 12:37, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ralph, do you restrict submission to only certain public subnets or
do you allow your users/customers to submit from any network?
Submission is allowed for SASL-authenticated users from any network.
Fortunately, the number of originating domains is not
Ralph Seichter put forth on 9/12/2010 6:44 AM:
On 12.09.10 12:37, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ralph, do you restrict submission to only certain public subnets or
do you allow your users/customers to submit from any network?
Submission is allowed for SASL-authenticated users from any network.
On 2010-09-12 05:53, Richard Chapman wrote:
Hi again Jasper..
I do appreciate your help - but have not solved the problem yet.
Please see below.
On 9/09/2010 11:58 PM, Jasper Jongmans wrote:
On 2010-09-09 17:29, Richard Chapman wrote:
[snip]
Sep 9 22:43:50 C5 postfix/local[9259]:
Le 12/09/2010 13:22, Ralph Seichter a écrit :
On 12.09.10 10:46, mouss wrote:
Received headers should not be included in the DKIM signature. so
removing them won't invalidate DKIM.
If you have a look at my message which you quoted, you'll see
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;
Le 12/09/2010 12:08, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
mouss put forth on 9/12/2010 3:46 AM:
=== header_checks_submission.pcre:
/^Received:\s*from\s+\S+\s+\(\S+\s+\[192\.168\.1\.\d+\]\)\s+by\s+your\.server\.example\s+\(Postfix\)/
IGNORE
Isn't this a bit heavy mouss? All he really needs to match
On 12.09.10 16:16, mouss wrote:
$signed_header_fields{lc('Received')} = 0;
I've read the amavisd-new documentation on DKIM support a couple of
times, but I have overlooked this possibility. How frustrating. Had I
used this, things would have worked last week already, because all my
trouble was
Thanks again Jasper. I have enabled local -v debug logging - and I
think we can see in more detail where the problem arises - but I still
can't figure it out.
I have included what I think is the relevant bit... Here it is:
8073]: relay: local
Sep 12 23:01:00 C5 postfix/local[28073]: exp_type:
On 2010-09-12 17:41, Richard Chapman wrote:
Thanks again Jasper. I have enabled local -v debug logging - and I
think we can see in more detail where the problem arises - but I still
can't figure it out.
I have included what I think is the relevant bit... Here it is:
[snip]
Sep 12 23:01:00 C5
Le 12/09/2010 10:46, mouss a écrit :
[snip]
#do not insert a Received header
$insert_received_line = 0;
replying to $-self
The above is obsolete. use
$allowed_added_header_fields{lc('Received')} = 0;
On 12.09.10 18:49, mouss wrote:
$allowed_added_header_fields{lc('Received')} = 0;
I'm using amavisd-new 2.6.4 and $insert_received_line = 0; still works
in this version. However, it is indeed obsolete (although still present
in the amavisd-new sample config) and the release notes for V2.7.0
Peter Evans, September 12, 201
I feel unloved. Why, are you getting nothing but deai spam from us?
You might as well block .info at least there is a deserving case.
I hear .com is full of spammers too.
I'd say that a .info helo or .info rdns as a spam test, has a higher hit (and
accuracy)
Noel Jones August 23, 2010
* p...@alt-ctrl-del.orgp...@alt-ctrl-del.org:
I find that a lot of spam comes from recently registered, throw away
domains. The new domain may be used as the sender, hostname, or name
server.
Are there any rbl type lists that block fresh domains, for the first
10-15
At 06:37 PM 9/12/2010, Peter Evans wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:28:05AM -0400, post...@corwyn.net wrote:
what I'd like to do is block all emails from individual countries based on
sender email address (.au, .jp, etc)
I feel unloved. Why, are you getting nothing but deai spam from
post...@corwyn.net, September 12, 2010
in fact, yes. (at least, nothing but spam). My company simply...
ps: ^_^ for the hard of humour.
18 matches
Mail list logo
