On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 01:05:43AM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:42:01AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:58:17PM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >
> > > I used fetchmail to retreive email from the university and it hands off
> > > the local system
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 03:13:51AM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2014, at 20:58 , Ruben Safir wrote:
> > I used fetchmail to retreive email from the university and it hands off
> > the local system which cause the mail to try to be forward to
> > localhost.com. Obviously I've made a big error
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:42:01AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:58:17PM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> > I used fetchmail to retreive email from the university and it hands off
> > the local system which cause the mail to try to be forward to
> > localhost.com. Obviou
Am 21.09.2014 um 03:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
rpmbuild refuses :-(
>>>
>>> You need a different patch for 2.11 and earlier. See
>>> earlier follow-up
>>
>> thanks - after change the patch it get applied
>>
>> may take some time for feedback because postscreen
>> is so dam
li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> rpmbuild refuses :-(
> >
> > You need a different patch for 2.11 and earlier. See
> > earlier follow-up
>
> thanks - after change the patch it get applied
>
> may take some time for feedback because postscreen
> is so damned good in reject junk before smtpd :-)
To impers
Am 21.09.2014 um 02:43 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
>>
>> Am 21.09.2014 um 02:30 schrieb Wietse Venema:
>>> li...@rhsoft.net:
thank you - looks promising!
could you attach this as unified diff-file?
>>>
>>> The patch is unified diff format. It just does not have some o
li...@rhsoft.net:
>
> Am 21.09.2014 um 02:30 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> thank you - looks promising!
> >>
> >> could you attach this as unified diff-file?
> >
> > The patch is unified diff format. It just does not have some of the
> > garbage that some version control syste
Wietse Venema:
> Does the following address the problem? This fixes the responses for:
>
> check_reverse_client_hostname_access
> check_reverse_client_hostname_a_access
> check_reverse_client_hostname_mx_access
> check_reverse_client_hostname_ns_access
>
> Basically, with all SMTP
Am 21.09.2014 um 02:30 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
>> thank you - looks promising!
>>
>> could you attach this as unified diff-file?
>
> The patch is unified diff format. It just does not have some of the
> garbage that some version control systems add around it. Let me know
> if
li...@rhsoft.net:
> thank you - looka promising!
>
> could you attach this as unified diff-file?
The patch is unified diff format. It just does not have some of the
garbage that some version control systems add around it. Let me know
if this is a problem.
Wietse
> that makes it easy to
thank you - looka promising!
could you attach this as unified diff-file?
that makes it easy to include it in rpmbuild for test/feedback
copy&paste usually damages something in patches
Am 21.09.2014 um 02:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Does the following address the problem? This fixes the responses
Does the following address the problem? This fixes the responses for:
check_reverse_client_hostname_access
check_reverse_client_hostname_a_access
check_reverse_client_hostname_mx_access
check_reverse_client_hostname_ns_access
Basically, with all SMTP server responses of the form
Benny Pedersen:
> > Final-Recipient: rfc822; u...@example.com
> > Action: undeliverable
> > Status: 4.4.4
> > Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; connect to host[addr]:25: Operation timed out
>
> Is this a real life example ?, if it cant connect it would still be in
> verify queue, no ?
Yes. It is anony
On September 20, 2014 3:47:42 PM wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
$ sendmail -f sender -bv recipient
Is postfix default sender not good here ?
Final-Recipient: rfc822; u...@example.com
Action: undeliverable
Status: 4.4.4
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; connect to host[addr]:25: Operat
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > >sendmail -bv root
> >
> > sure, simple :-)
> >
> > but would be nice to simply get a returncode 0/1 instead a message.
> > I assume that's what Ralf is searching.
>
> A message would be ok, since it could go back into a script via a pipe.
Choose a suitable envelope sender
* A. Schulze :
>
> Benny Pedersen:
>
> >Ralf Hildebrandt skrev den 2014-09-19 11:20:
> >>Is the Address verification functionality callable via an invocation
> >>of the sendmail compatability binary?
> >
> >sendmail -bv root
>
> sure, simple :-)
>
> but would be nice to simply get a returncode
On 19 Sep 2014, at 20:58 , Ruben Safir wrote:
> I used fetchmail to retreive email from the university and it hands off
> the local system which cause the mail to try to be forward to
> localhost.com. Obviously I've made a big error somewhere, but I can't
> track it down
$ dig localhost.com | gr
17 matches
Mail list logo
