Le 02/06/2011 06:42, kshitij mali a écrit :
Hi all ,
we send the emails from the application server by making smtp session with
one of the postfix server
there’s a scenario when CRM server send out invalid email address to
postfix, we’re getting a bounced-back email saying that the email
Le 01/06/2011 10:52, Nahliel Steinberg a écrit :
Sirs,
Recently i have configured postfix on my laptop at home, to use it with
yahoo. Ok at home run succesfull.
Here at office, postfix dont run because 465 port is blocking by a firewall.
I decide at office, to reconfigure postfix with
hi
you'd better use unique IDs (or VERP) and keep copies of the messages
somewhere...
will u please explain in detail the above configuration and what change need
to do on postfix
Regards,
Kshitij
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Le 02/06/2011 06:42,
Le 01/06/2011 12:13, Jerry a écrit :
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:52:17 +0200
Nahliel Steinberg nahliel.steinb...@gmail.com articulated:
Recently i have configured postfix on my laptop at home, to use it
with yahoo. Ok at home run succesfull.
Here at office, postfix dont run because 465 port is
Hi
I wrote my problem before , but i want to create correct solution
for smtp_destination_recipient_limit
in main.cf we set smtp_destination_recipient_limit=50
but we have stupid users :) they ignore account quota phishing mails and
they give their passwords :$
i want to control recipient count
On 06/02/2011 09:57 AM, Selcuk Yazar wrote:
Hi
I wrote my problem before , but i want to create correct solution
for smtp_destination_recipient_limit
This is an smtp(8) setting; it does not apply to recipients in
*received* mail.
in main.cf http://main.cf we set
On 2011-06-01 Len Conrad wrote:
At 04:48 PM 6/1/2011, you wrote:
On 2011-06-01 Shawn Heisey wrote:
I do the first option by running a script on the exchange server every
15 minutes, then grabbing the result five minutes later from the mail
relays. It does some sanity checks before replacing
Hi
what about policyd ?
thanks
On 6/2/2011 4:46 AM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
I'm aware that this can be done in Perl. I just don't see any point in
using VBScript to extract the data, and then switching to Perl for
further processing.
I also don't see any point in using awk to transform the output of a
Perl script, BTW.
I
I must confess that the tcpdump output is over my head. Any help would be
appreciated. I see a lot of checksums marked bad and incorrect but I have no
idea how to fix it. I am using a Netgear FVS318G with an MTU of 1500. The only
thing I found on Google was that it might mean the router is
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:28:18AM -0500, Justin Tocci wrote:
Record complete packets into a file with tcpdump -s 0 -w, make the
binary packet capture available. Disable TCP window scaling in your
kernel, it may be confusing your router.
The below trace is rather bizarre, something is dreadfully
I must confess that the tcpdump output is over my head. Any help would be
appreciated. I see a lot of checksums marked bad and incorrect but I have
no idea how to fix it.
Justin T
Q 11.1: Why am I seeing lots of packets with incorrect TCP checksums?
A: If the packets that have incorrect
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:23:11PM +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote:
thanks for the fast replies. For me, the problem has been solved in
the meantime. SORBS indeed reacted quite fast (thanks again!). What
Good!
I am missing, though, is how to avoid that in the future. It is
most likely to
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:20:30PM +0530, kshitij mali wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
you'd better use unique IDs (or VERP) and keep copies of the
messages somewhere...
will u please explain in detail the above configuration and what
change need to
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, /dev/rob0 wrote:
So, we can do as much as we can on our side, but if users make
errors, and miss talking to us, it will be hard to avoid it in
total, so if there is any best practice on this, that would be
indeed helpful.
Best practice is to do what Mailman and
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:45:31PM -0700, Wietse Venema wrote:
Postfix hasn't changed, as far as I can tell. Perhaps something on
your system has changed.
We did update a number of components, and after viewing postfix
changelogs and source code without anything popping out, we went back to
a
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 12:55:21PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:45:31PM -0700, Wietse Venema wrote:
Postfix hasn't changed, as far as I can tell. Perhaps something on
your system has changed.
We did update a number of components, and after viewing postfix
I did find out how to dump fancier output which I think someone wanted.
tcpdump -AXXr /opt/mail/dump10.txt
17:08:23.323379 IP server.workflowproducts.com.smtp
mx-ecom.netflix.com.29698: Flags [.], seq 1:47, ack 1, win 65535, length 46
0x: e091 f53f 1307 d49a 20fd a988 0800 4500
Victor Duchovni:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 12:55:21PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:45:31PM -0700, Wietse Venema wrote:
Postfix hasn't changed, as far as I can tell. Perhaps something on
your system has changed.
We did update a number of components, and
Justin Tocci:
I did find out how to dump fancier output which I think someone wanted.
tcpdump -AXXr /opt/mail/dump10.txt
17:08:23.323379 IP server.workflowproducts.com.smtp
mx-ecom.netflix.com.29698: Flags [.], seq 1:47, ack 1, win 65535, length 46
Where is the SYN handshake with the
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:41:06PM -0700, Victor Duchovni wrote:
The major change in 2.7 is below. The problem is that when sendmail(1)
extracts recipients from the headers, and the message is too large,
postdrop(1) will never see the extracted recipients.
Ah, Wietse tested with a recipient
Apparently I cut my the last post too short to be useful. I am getting better
at tcpdump. Here is everything I captured the last time I tried:
Capture command:
tcpdump -s 0 -w /opt/mail/dump11.txt net 208.75.76.252/32
root@server:~
$ tcpdump -AKvvr /opt/mail/dump12.txt
reading from file
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 05:41:55PM -0700, Wietse Venema wrote:
Well no-one told me it happens with sendmail -t, so I did not
test for that option (or the bazillion other permutations of Postfix
options). Let this be a reminder that a problem report should
contain all the information that is
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:06:13PM -0500, Justin Tocci wrote:
Apparently I cut my the last post too short to be useful. I am getting better
at tcpdump. Here is everything I captured the last time I tried:
You still have not disabled TCP window scaling. On Linux systems:
sysctl -w
24 matches
Mail list logo
