On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:34:50PM -0500, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
On 11/16/2010 2:03 PM, Chris G wrote:
Er, it's Postfix isn't it? :-) Or have I misunderstood completely
(quite likely!).
When I 'telnet mws.zbmc.eu 25' from the client it does connect to
mws.zbmc.eu (192.168.1.4)
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:47:45AM +, Chris G wrote:
... and that has resolved the DNS/IP problem at least though I'm still
getting relaying denied. So now the relayhost (192.168.1.4) is
rejecting the E-Mail from the client (192.168.1.2) even though I have:-
mynetworks =
Hi there,
I appreciate everyone's trying to help, that is what I like about this
group. Here is the context of what I am trying to do.
We are doing system integration for two software system to exchange
messages. Our industry standards requires the use of emails for message
exchange, so that a
Thanks for the pointers guys. I was able to rectify the problem in the
master.cf file. Now it is working well.
regards
Wire
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 13:43 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Wire James w...@linuxsolutions.co.ug:
The entries that altermime added in the main.cf are;
#
greetings,
i'm pretty new at this. my problem could be obvious.
i have a primary internet connection and a backup. sometimes the primary
side will tell the backup side to deliver mail for it. at least, that's
what i think based on what i see in the maillog snippets below.
mail that should be
After updating to postfix-2.7.1 I noticed that etc-update wanted to
change the following entry in master.cf:
smtps inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes
The one above is correct.
http://www.postfix.org/smtpd.8.html
to the
Hello All,
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't like
certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
I'm wondering if it doesn't like the 4th octet of the IP's being a zero.
Any help appreciated!
Here is a small piece of the log file:
Jack wrote:
Hello All,
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't like
certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
The error message seems reasonably clear. You shouldn't have any
non-zero bits after the bit position indicated by the network size (/23
below).
I.e. those
On 11/17/2010 11:54 AM, Jack wrote:
Hello All,
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't like
certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
I'm wondering if it doesn't like the 4th octet of the IP's being a zero.
Any help appreciated!
Here is a small piece of the log file:
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't
like certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
The error message seems reasonably clear. You shouldn't have any non-zero
bits after the bit position indicated by the network size (/23 below).
I.e. those CIDR entries are
Hi Jack!
If I am blocking 194.149.65.0/23 this is a standard format, it tells us that
the IP's are the 194.149.65.0-255 and 194.149.66.0-255.
This is where you've got it wrong, it means 94.149.64.0-255 and
94.149.65.0-255. If you need 65 and 66 you will need to specify two /24
CIDR entries:
All,
We are experiencing a problem where Postfix (Using 2.6.2) continuously returns
a 503 5.7.0 Error: access denied response.
The scenario is as follows (see log snipet below for sequence details):
The client MTA attempts to send a message. On the DOT command, Postfix
returns: '451 4.3.0
On 11/17/2010 12:12 PM, Jack wrote:
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't
like certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
The error message seems reasonably clear. You shouldn't have any non-zero
bits after the bit position indicated by the network size (/23 below).
I.e.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:47:45AM +, Chris G wrote:
ch...@dps:/etc/postfix$ host mws.zbmc.eu
mws.zbmc.eu has address 192.168.1.4
mws.zbmc.eu is an alias for zbmc.eu.
mws.zbmc.eu is an alias for zbmc.eu.
zbmc.eu mail is handled by 10 zbmc.eu.
It is not legal for a
On 11/17/2010 12:12 PM, Jack wrote:
Hi Mark, thanks for your response, and I apologize if my brain is not
grasping what your saying.
If I am blocking 194.149.65.0/23 this is a standard format, it tells us that
the IP's are the 194.149.65.0-255 and 194.149.66.0-255.
Are we saying that the CIDR
Hi Jack!
If I am blocking 194.149.65.0/23 this is a standard format, it tells
us that the IP's are the 194.149.65.0-255 and 194.149.66.0-255.
This is where you've got it wrong, it means 94.149.64.0-255 and
94.149.65.0-255. If you need 65 and 66 you will need to specify two /24 CIDR
entries:
On 2010-11-17 Jay G. Scott wrote:
now -- my relay_recipient_maps parameter points to pfknown_users
which has the form:
ttt OK
do i have to have ...@arlut.utexas.edu OK ?
Yes.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning.
--Joel
now -- my relay_recipient_maps parameter points to pfknown_users which has
the form:
ttt OK
do i have to have ...@arlut.utexas.edu OK ? because i've seen one piece
of email get delivered today. is it possible my present format will work
sometimes but not others? and the u...@... form
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:24:12PM +, George Forman wrote:
The scenario is as follows (see log snipet below for sequence details):
The client MTA attempts to send a message. On the DOT command, Postfix
returns: '451 4.3.0 Error: queue file write error'
This happens when a milter
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:40:38PM +0100, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-11-17 Jay G. Scott wrote:
now -- my relay_recipient_maps parameter points to pfknown_users
which has the form:
ttt OK
do i have to have ...@arlut.utexas.edu OK ?
Yes.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:01:05PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
I am looking for suggestions on a longer term solution.
I have made a change in smtpd_proto function:
New code:
/* XXX We use the real client for connect access control. */
if
I have a sender from a web hosting company who is not able to send to
one of my users. The log entry looks like this:
Nov 16 10:50:57 smtp postfix/smtpd[15063]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
ip67-89-97-251.z97-89-67.customer.algx.net[67.89.97.251]: 554 5.7.1
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:32:24PM +, Chris G wrote:
It is not legal for a DNS CNAME RRset to coexist with other data for
the same domain name. Nor should you have multiple CNAME records for
the same domain.
If mdw.zmbc.edu is a host with A records, it must not be a CNAME.
If it
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:01:05 -0500
From: victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Invalid response code: 503 5.7.0 Error: access denied
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:24:12PM +, George Forman wrote:
The scenario is as follows (see log snipet
Victor Duchovni:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:01:05PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
I am looking for suggestions on a longer term solution.
I have made a change in smtpd_proto function:
New code:
/* XXX We use the real client for connect access control. */
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 07:26:35PM +, George Forman wrote:
No, RFC 2821/5321 notwithstanding, Postfix must reject RSET, to give
clients a chance to disconnect before before real mail is rejected.
So DO NOT exempt rset_cmd. Otherwise, the change makes sense. Postfix
gives the intended
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:37:27PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
The problem here is that smtpd_access_denied is misused from its original
intent of reporting 503 after a client fails to heed a 554 banner. Perhaps
the intended 421 disconnect on the next command should use a different
* vr postfix-u...@iotk.net:
I have a sender from a web hosting company who is not able to send to
one of my users. The log entry looks like this:
Nov 16 10:50:57 smtp postfix/smtpd[15063]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
ip67-89-97-251.z97-89-67.customer.algx.net[67.89.97.251]: 554 5.7.1
Victor Duchovni:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:37:27PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
The problem here is that smtpd_access_denied is misused from its original
intent of reporting 503 after a client fails to heed a 554 banner. Perhaps
the intended 421 disconnect on the next command should
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:10:09 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* vr :
I have a sender from a web hosting company who is not able to send to
one of my users. The log entry looks like this:
Nov 16 10:50:57 smtp postfix/smtpd[15063]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:04:57PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:32:24PM +, Chris G wrote:
It is not legal for a DNS CNAME RRset to coexist with other data for
the same domain name. Nor should you have multiple CNAME records for
the same domain.
If
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Le_invitamos_a_asistir_a_la_Presentaci=F3n_de_la_Oportunid?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ad_de_negocio_en_ACN_Marketing_y_Servicios_de_Telecomunica?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ciones?=
Does anyone have a header_checks pcre that would allow me to reject or
discard any email with
Chris G put forth on 11/17/2010 5:50 AM:
That's one answer of course, thanks, for the moment I have changed my
local DNS server so that it returns a LAN address for zbmc.eu as well as
mws.zbmc.eu. If that causes other issues (I don't think it will) then
I'll use the above [] syntax.
On 11/17/2010 02:30 PM, Chris G wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:04:57PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
I would expect that dnsmasq is documented, and the documentation should
cover sufficient detail to help you avoid this illegal RRset combination.
You should only bother the gurus/maintainers
On 11/16/2010 10:30 PM, Grant wrote:
I use Gentoo and their etc-update script to update my config files.
After updating to postfix-2.7.1 I noticed that etc-update wanted to
change the following entry in master.cf:
smtps inet n - n - - smtpd
-o
George Forman put forth on 11/17/2010 11:24 AM:
All,
We are experiencing a problem where Postfix (Using 2.6.2) continuously
returns a 503 5.7.0 Error: access denied response.
Looks like you're also experiencing a problem with someone else gaining
access to your Hotmail account and
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:28:21PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Le_invitamos_a_asistir_a_la_Presentaci=F3n_de_la_Oportunid?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ad_de_negocio_en_ACN_Marketing_y_Servicios_de_Telecomunica?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ciones?=
Does anyone have a
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:27:20PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
I had a similar patch that I was going to post 30 mins ago when
someone walked into my room:
OK, we are on the same page then.
On a somewhat related note, should the documentation explicitly warn that
with
hi all,
i am new to postfix and dovecot and this is my first ever setup.
i have a problem with address rewrite on local/lmtp when using unix
account as an alias from virtual user.
when an email from outside deliver to virtual user on local server
(t...@test.net) then it rewrite to
Victor Duchovni put forth on 11/17/2010 11:53 PM:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:28:21PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Le_invitamos_a_asistir_a_la_Presentaci=F3n_de_la_Oportunid?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ad_de_negocio_en_ACN_Marketing_y_Servicios_de_Telecomunica?=
40 matches
Mail list logo
