Am 20.10.2012 22:08, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
Hey guys,
if [ `$mailq_count` -gt 50 ]; then echo Mail count on Server is
`$mailq_count`|/usr/sbin/sendmail -f r...@example.com repo...@example.com ;
fi
I'm not sure, if sending an e-mail about a full mailqueue-condition is
the best way to
On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek g...@stovebolt.com wrote:
But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else
comply with my concept of what is right.
Then this means you are not using a DNSBL as a block list - which
indeed promotes a live and let live approach.
It is
On 2012-10-20, peter evans pe...@ixp.jp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 01:14:19PM +, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
From: Mike's unattended mail mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf
I think that about says how much value your opinions have.
* dnsbl
If it is good enough for the
On 21 Oct 2012, at 11:05, Mike's unattended mail
mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf wrote:
You're the first to post an ad hominem, without so much as even
bundling it with a single logical argument.
Which should have been the point where this thread immediately halted...
Please take your
On 2012-10-21, Jim Reid j...@rfc1035.com wrote:
Please take your religious debate elsewhere as it's no longer
relevant to this list. Thanks.
If you perceive RFC compliance as a religious matter, please feel free
to disregard this thread. Thanks.
To be clear, the hot-headed remarks that
On 2012-10-20, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
With mailman one can deactivate receiving mails but still be a member
(during vacation for example)
a proper mailserver will not respond to messages wtih a
Precedence: bulk header and not respond more than once
each day to the same
He's made 6 posts since joining less than 24 hours ago. All have
been 100% off topic, argumentative and/or preachy. It is clear he
didn't join this list to receive help with Postfix, or to help
others with Postfix.
He should take the opportunity to remove himself before Wietse
performs this
Am 21.10.2012 13:22, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
The logical debate to this point have not favored proponents of the
two crude and sloppy techniques that I mentioned. But, I'm open for
good rationale; both for my benefit and the OPs.
what is so difficult to undestand?
if you are
Am 21.10.2012 13:28, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
On 2012-10-20, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
With mailman one can deactivate receiving mails but still be a member
(during vacation for example)
a proper mailserver will not respond to messages wtih a
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:05:24 + (UTC)
Mike's unattended mail articulated:
Your whitehouse remark is an illogical appeal to authority. You're
actually the only one to have a post that's unworthy of response.
And yet you did ...
--
Jerry ✌
postfix-u...@seibercom.net
Obviously, some people don't notice the troll alert signs.
Ignore this person.
On 20/10/2012 18:27, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-20, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
DNSBLs are recommended by just about everyone who is serious about
email,
There are a couple ways to use DNSBLs. There are those who are
serious but either incompetent or on a
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge m...@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
No, it isn't right to deliver spam. Spam should be rejected, because
if it isn't then the sending server has no incentive to clean up its
act.
How does a rejection create incentive for a spam-sending server to
clean up? If this is a
On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge m...@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of
incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator.
How do you think a competent sys admin sets the EHLO under the
On 2012-10-21, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
so write a SIMPLE sieve-rule to discard the messages from the list
on your server if you only use gmane - what exactly is your problem?
That's a hack. It's reasonable, but not as favorable as not having
the traffic in the first place.
On 21/10/12 16:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21/10/2012 15:21, Mike's unattended mail wrote:
On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge m...@good-stuff.co.uk wrote:
And, even if it isn't spam, it is a near-100% indicator of
incompetance on the part of the sending system's administrator.
How do you think a
Am 21.10.2012 16:21, schrieb Mike's unattended mail:
The RFC certainly does not insist that senders buy a domain name.
Who said anything about buying a domain name? Any server connected to
the Internet can have a host name,
If you use the FQDN format for the EHLO, it cannot be just any
--On October 21, 2012 9:53:49 AM + Mike's unattended mail
mike.thomas-dlre...@cool.fr.nf wrote:
On 2012-10-20, The Stovebolt Geek g...@stovebolt.com wrote:
But then I've never been one to rigidly demand that everyone else
comply with my concept of what is right.
Then this means you are
Off-topic portions removed. Ditto Stan's comment: this thread needs
to come to an end. I already responded to the off-topic assertions
back in September, suggesting that it move to SDLU. I saw some
silliness in this thread, but I am refusing to be dragged into it.[1]
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at
William,
* William Holt holt.william.aa...@gmail.com:
hi, new to the forum. I'm running arch and have postfix/cyrus.
I can telnet to the smtp daemon, smtp is running and acceptd connection:
please post output from saslfinger as requested by
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail. It
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 03:51:13PM -0400, William Holt wrote:
hi, new to the forum. I'm running arch and have postfix/cyrus.
Generally I recommend Dovecot for SASL and IMAP.
I can telnet to the smtp daemon, smtp is running and acceptd
connection:
-telnet #.#.#.# 25--
21 matches
Mail list logo
