Thank you for your feedback. Seems like smtpd_milters are also used before
any other check_*_access and rbl checks/header checks etc., so it's
expensive this way, to pipe every mail through virus scan.
I'm just testing if i could plug in clamav by check_policy_service.
Am Fr., 19. Okt. 2018 um
Hi,
> I'm building a simple pair of front MX-servers to get rid of our cisco
> ironports. For spam and
> virus-scanning i'd like to have spamassassin and clamav doing pre-filtering
> during smtp-dialog
> rejecting bad mails and forwarding good mails to internal mail-farm.
While for virus you
Dear Users,
I'm building a simple pair of front MX-servers to get rid of our cisco
ironports. For spam and virus-scanning i'd like to have spamassassin and
clamav doing pre-filtering during smtp-dialog rejecting bad mails and
forwarding good mails to internal mail-farm.
Is it best practice to
Hello Wietse,
Friday, October 19, 2018, 11:15:49 AM, you wrote:
> Phil Biggs:
>> Oct 18 14:58:56 postfix/postscreen[1592]: CONNECT from [203.38.21.10]:35490
>> to [192.168.11.19]:25
>> Oct 18 14:59:02 postfix/postscreen[1592]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>> [203.38.21.10]:35490: 450 4.3.2
Phil Biggs:
> Oct 18 14:58:56 postfix/postscreen[1592]: CONNECT from [203.38.21.10]:35490
> to [192.168.11.19]:25
> Oct 18 14:59:02 postfix/postscreen[1592]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> [203.38.21.10]:35490: 450 4.3.2 Service currently unavailable;
> from=, to=, proto=ESMTP,
> helo=
> Oct 18
On 10/18/18 3:09 PM, Gary wrote:
>
> https://cyber.dhs.gov/bod/18-01/
>
> Oct 16 was the deadline for the feds to implement DMARC. Compliance of course
> is TBD. They are set to reject mail that doest pass SPF or DKIM.
>
And roughly a quarter of Federal agencies have done nothing, according
Friday, October 19, 2018, 4:38:45 AM, Wietse wrote:
> Phil Biggs:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm running postfix postfix-3.3.1 on FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE.
>>
>> For quite a long time I've used a persistent postscreen_cache file:
>>
>> postscreen_cache_map = btree:/var/db/postfix/postscreen_cache
>>
Additional information. I've cited the man page of virtual but in the
test I've mentioned, I've used local delivery. In local(5), the
information is more interesting but still no clear explanation:
CASE FOLDING
All delivery decisions are made using the bare recipient name (i.e. the
Hello
I'm implementing a new feature in our mail system which uses address
extensions for message delivery to user inbox subfolders.
I've found out that alias expansion folds case not only of user part of
address (before +), but it also folds the address extension (after +).
I've setup a basic
https://cyber.dhs.gov/bod/18-01/
Oct 16 was the deadline for the feds to implement DMARC. Compliance of course
is TBD. They are set to reject mail that doest pass SPF or DKIM.
> On Oct 18, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Peter wrote:
>
>> As weird as it sounds none of the queue managing commands seem to do
>> anything: postfix flush, postqueue -f, postsuper -h ALL, postsuper -H
>> ALL. Increasing verbosity levels (-v) does not really help.
>
> None of these will do anything on
On 19/10/18 00:26, das mouse wrote:
> As weird as it sounds none of the queue managing commands seem to do
> anything: postfix flush, postqueue -f, postsuper -h ALL, postsuper -H
> ALL. Increasing verbosity levels (-v) does not really help.
None of these will do anything on an empty queue.
>
> On Oct 18, 2018, at 7:26 AM, das mouse wrote:
>
> I run Postfix 3.1 on a Ubuntu 16lts box. Postfix' config on this machine is
> very very simple, not more than a local relay.
>
> As weird as it sounds none of the queue managing commands seem to do
> anything: postfix flush, postqueue -f,
Phil Biggs:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm running postfix postfix-3.3.1 on FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE.
>
> For quite a long time I've used a persistent postscreen_cache file:
>
> postscreen_cache_map = btree:/var/db/postfix/postscreen_cache
> postscreen_cache_retention_time = 90d
>
> The postscreen_cache.db
On 10/18/2018 6:26 AM, das mouse wrote:
> Hi
>
> I run Postfix 3.1 on a Ubuntu 16lts box. Postfix' config on this
> machine is very very simple, not more than a local relay.
>
> As weird as it sounds none of the queue managing commands seem to do
> anything: postfix flush, postqueue -f,
> On Oct 18, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> This points out the basic difficulty in doing MTA surveys. It's impossible to
> know what MTA you've connected to in many cases, it is often impossible to
> know if it's the same instance you've already connected to on a different IP,
On 18 Oct 2018, at 8:44, Richard Salts wrote:
On 18 October 2018 9:44:35 pm AEDT, Manuel Mely
wrote:
Hi there,
I'm looking for some information related to MTAs usage statistics
worldwide. In other words, i would like to know how many postfix (and
other
MTAs) are deployed out there, in the
On 18 October 2018 9:44:35 pm AEDT, Manuel Mely wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>I'm looking for some information related to MTAs usage statistics
>worldwide. In other words, i would like to know how many postfix (and
>other
>MTAs) are deployed out there, in the wild thing called "The Internet"
>:)
>
>Any
Hi
I run Postfix 3.1 on a Ubuntu 16lts box. Postfix' config on this machine is
very very simple, not more than a local relay.
As weird as it sounds none of the queue managing commands seem to do
anything: postfix flush, postqueue -f, postsuper -h ALL, postsuper -H ALL.
Increasing verbosity
Hi there,
I'm looking for some information related to MTAs usage statistics
worldwide. In other words, i would like to know how many postfix (and other
MTAs) are deployed out there, in the wild thing called "The Internet" :)
Any suggestion?
Greetings!
20 matches
Mail list logo
