On 2012-01-02 7:17 AM, Ram r...@netcore.co.in wrote:
Can I configure my postfix server to send all bounces to a single
mailbox , instead of the sender of the mail
In 99.9% of cases, doing this would be a very bad idea.
As you were advised in the welcome message you received when signing up
On 2011-12-26 5:46 AM, Nick Edwards nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Show the entire log snippet, of which you elided important parts.
no, I did not, all I did not include was the from/to/helo, from/to
are irrelevant and the helo, I already
On 2011-12-23 6:04 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
I'm confused about this warning I just saw in my logs (never seen it
before):
Dec 23 12:03:24 myhost postfix/bounce[19970]: warning: [built-in]: zero
result in delay template conversion of parameter delay_warning_time_hours
Dec 23
Hello,
I'm confused about this warning I just saw in my logs (never seen it
before):
Dec 23 12:03:24 myhost postfix/bounce[19970]: warning: [built-in]: zero
result in delay template conversion of parameter delay_warning_time_hours
Dec 23 12:03:24 myhost postfix/bounce[19970]: warning: please
On 2011-12-16 5:27 AM, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
On 2011-12-13 12:30, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-12-13 3:11 AM, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
Yes, I caught that. (But thanks for the note, anyway). I plan to
let inbox be mbox format, just like it is in a normal mail
On 2011-12-13 3:11 AM, Jeroen Geilman jer...@adaptr.nl wrote:
Yes, I caught that. (But thanks for the note, anyway). I plan to
let inbox be mbox format, just like it is in a normal mail spool.
So, no maildir, then ?
You can't exactly mix the formats - it's one or the other.
Sure you can...
On 2011-12-09 10:07 AM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
master.cf:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o
smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
You should also have:
On 2011-12-09 11:12 AM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you but if I do that I won't be able to connect from
Squirrelmail which does not currently support STARTTLS. Squirrelmail
is on the same machine as postfix so TLS isn't necessary there anyway.
Which is why it was repeatedly
On 2011-12-09 11:25 AM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
It was also repeatedly suggested that I switch to exactly the
arrangement that I've switched to.
No, that was only presented as an option (there is always more than one
way to skin a cat).
Doing it the way you did it makes your
Hello,
We are unable to receive mail from an automated system (Intuits Payroll
Services), and have been unable to determine why.
We use an outsourced anti-spam service (webroot), so I have to rely on
what they tell me about their logs.
One thing I noticed - when I do an nslookup on
On 2011-12-01 1:40 PM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
It appears intuit payroll services use exacttarget.com for their
mail services. Exacttarget is a legit bulk mailer, but some folks
might block exacttarget for perceived spamming. Something else to
look into anyway.
Ok, at leats
On 2011-11-18 1:26 PM, peng...@sepserver.net wrote:
I just installed postfix on Debian6. It's humming along and I am
sending mail from it. I noticed that there is a folder /root/Mail
although there is no mail in it yet. Also there seems to be nothing at
all in/var/mail/. Doesn't Postfix
On 2011-11-18 1:34 PM, Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
One of the first things I always do is alias root to my admin account,
Should have read: One of the first things I always do *when setting up
a new mail server* is alias root to my admin account,...
--
Best regards
On 2011-11-16 6:57 AM, Denis Witt denis.w...@concepts-and-training.de
wrote:
Hi,
I'm using Postfix 2.7.1-1+squeeze1 with OpenLDAP. Everything works fine
except one thing. If I send an E-Mail to $myname@$nonlocaldomain.com
it's delivered to my local postbox.
This becomes a major problem when
On 2011-11-02 11:43 AM, Keith Steensma ke...@airways-consulting.com wrote:
It's been a long time since I have participated in this list (goes to
show how good Postfiix is when it can run for years with so few
problems). Our company has decided to start using an outside SPAM
filtering service.
On 2011-10-25 7:48 AM, Nikolaos Milas nmi...@noa.gr wrote:
*Question 1:*
Is it enough to uncomment (in /etc/postfix/master.cf):
#smtps inet n - n - - smtpd
# -o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes
# -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
# -o
On 2011-10-18 1:04 PM, Simon Brereton simon.brere...@buongiorno.com wrote:
Is smtpd_enforce_tls=yes a suitable replacement/substitute for
smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes?
No, they are two different things.
What version of postfix? For current/latest version of postfix I use both:
On 2011-10-13 6:50 PM, Joel Roberts joel.robe...@pinkardcc.com wrote:
Nothing shows in the POSTFIX log if I’m tailing it while testing it.
That only proves that either:
1. You are looking at the wrong logs or the right logs for the wrong
server, or
2. The message is never hitting the
On 2011-10-13 11:00 AM, sven.kie...@compact.de sven.kie...@compact.de
wrote:
Maybe I don't get it, or you use different representations of what is an
byte or KB instead of KiB? If I'm seeing something wrong please point me
to my failure. :-)
Or maybe you failed to read the welcome message when
On 2011-10-12 2:13 AM, Tolga to...@ozses.net wrote:
pickupfifo n - - 60 1 pickup
cleanup unix n - - - 0 cleanup
You still have lots of stuff chrooted...
I'm far from expert at this stuff, but I'm fairly certain you can't
On 2011-10-12 10:19 AM, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:44:34AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
I'm far from expert at this stuff, but I'm fairly certain you can't
mix/match... either run everything chrooted, or don't.
Not true, in fact, some
On 2011-10-10 2:56 AM, Tolga to...@ozses.net wrote:
I was reported that the e-mails people send never get to my server. When
I first was reported, I tested and it was true. I tested some more and
found out I couldn't get e-mail when I switch to submission port. How
can I fix this? You can find
On 2011-10-10 4:17 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Tolga:
On 10-10-2011 21:09, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-10-10 2:56 AM, Tolgato...@ozses.net wrote:
I was reported that the e-mails people send never get to my server. When
I first was reported, I tested and it was true. I
On 2011-10-04 2:55 AM, Dhanraj Wadhe dhanraj.wa...@gmail.com wrote:
We are public email provider with postfix at backend. We are facing
issue with getting black listed again and again.
Evidence?
Currently we have setup reverse lookup, DKIIM and SPF to avoid getting
listed into rbl's and
On 2011-09-29 11:33 AM, Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org wrote:
Am 29.09.2011 17:27, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
Hi Everyone,
Bit of a design question here.
We have 2 users wishing to share an email account. However, when one
person reads the email, we would like the email for the other
On 2011-09-16 10:47 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
For example, as I recall, Mailman used to treat each list completely
separately - while Sympa runs off a consolidated subscriber database.
It looks like Mailman has evolved considerably since then, though.
Mailman 3,
Please don't top post...
On 2011-09-08 1:33 PM, Crazedfred crazedf...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:02 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-09-07 1:01 PM, Crazedfred crazedf...@yahoo.com wrote:
I ran saslfinger -c and saslfinger -s and it does appear that many
On 2011-09-08 2:05 PM, Crazedfred crazedf...@yahoo.com wrote:
I would agree that I most likely don't need chroot (and it is strange
that the default config has issues with chroot?). How can I disable the
feature for all of postfix's components?
As I said... place an 'n' in the chroot column
On 2011-09-07 1:01 PM, Crazedfred crazedf...@yahoo.com wrote:
I ran saslfinger -c and saslfinger -s and it does appear that many
of the relevant services are chrooted.
Either they are or they aren't...
As your master.cf shows, most are...
Anything without an 'n' in the chroot column IS
On 2011-07-06 5:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
ASSP (anti-spam proxy) has this ability (to deliver to two different
destinations) if you put it in front of your postfix server...
http://assp.sourceforge.net/
I would not recommend putting proxy code in front of Postfix, however,
if ASSP is a
On 2011-07-06 2:12 PM, motty.cruz wrote:
Can I use the transport file to deliver one email to two servers? I actually
meant to deliver one email twice, to imap1 and its backups imap2?
ASSP (anti-spam proxy) has this ability (to deliver to two different
destinations) if you put it in front of
On 2011-06-03 1:47 PM, Justin Tocci wrote:
If anyone knows of a decent firewall in the $300 or less range let me know.
Far be it from me to challenge Victor on a recommendation like this, but
if money is tight, for home/small business networks, I have only good
things to say about this
On 2011-05-12 6:30 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
If you do need to preserve the exact incoming message, use an smtp proxy
to do $whatever-you-want.
ASSP will accomplish this... and provide an excellent anti-spam service
at the same time, complete with scheduled *and* on-demand user
quarantine
On 2011-03-25 5:27 PM, Walt Shekrota wrote:
smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
dovecot's sasl implementation doesn't support CLIENT side SASL auth,
only server side.
If you need client side SASL AUTH capability, use Cyrus-SASL...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2011-03-28 12:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 28.03.2011 18:01, schrieb Charles Marcus:
On 2011-03-25 5:27 PM, Walt Shekrota wrote:
smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
dovecot's sasl implementation doesn't support CLIENT side SASL auth,
only server side.
If you need client side SASL AUTH capability
On 2011-03-21 9:53 AM, lance raymond wrote:
*sigh* hate the obvious. But doing a grep inet_inerfaces on the
main.cf http://main.cf file, there was my all, then a bit lower, a
inet_interfaces = localhost so it was getting overwritten.
This is why you don't grep the main.cf, you always go by
On 2011-03-19 3:57 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.03.2011 19:32, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
What I'm doing is this (just a few examples):
alo.com error:5.1.2 You probably meant aol.com, not alo.com
this is a cool solution
I agree...
Here's a site for generating a list of typos for any
On 2011-03-20 2:53 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com:
Here's a site for generating a list of typos for any given domain to
quickly build some lists:
http://www.selfseo.com/domain_typo_generator.php
That's cool, but I still have to check if the domain
On 2011-03-20 3:12 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-03-20 2:53 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com:
Here's a site for generating a list of typos for any given domain to
quickly build some lists:
http://www.selfseo.com/domain_typo_generator.php
That's
On 2011-03-18 9:41 AM, Alain Spineux wrote:
And when you get an email, if it is not from a SPF enable domain you
drop it,
If you do that you drop a lot of legitimate mail...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2011-03-14 10:34 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
But there's also mailbox_size_limit to track. Wouldn't it be better
to set both mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit to much
larger values (or zero) and modify message_size_limit only, so that
one can focus to one parameter only?
Imo,
On 2011-03-14 11:12 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
Imo, zero/unlimited is *never* a good idea...
Why (for mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit)?
Because... *unlimited* *anything* is never a good idea... too much room
for error.
I
On 2011-03-14 12:11 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-03-14 11:30:14 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-03-14 11:12 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
Imo, zero/unlimited is *never* a good idea...
Why (for mailbox_size_limit
On 2011-03-05 9:29 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
always_bcc is exactly what I would do
But isn't there a problem with the loss of all of the headers when using
always_bcc and if so, isn't that a problem with respect to most of the
laws mandating email archival?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2011-03-06 3:48 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-03-05 9:29 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
always_bcc is exactly what I would do
But isn't there a problem with the loss of all of the headers
That didn't sound right... should have said... '...aren't some headers
lost...'...
--
Best regards
On 2011-03-02 5:10 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 01/03/2011 10:09, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit :
MariaDB is a database server that offers drop-in replacement
functionality for MySQL. MariaDB is built by some of the original
authors of MySQL, with assistance from the broader community of Free
and open
On 2011-02-17 1:16 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:03:04PM +, Adam Hamer wrote:
Postfix will not add X-Original-To when forwarding mail.
Yes, really when not using a delivery agent that is typically used
for outbound or relay email. In the case of lmtp(8) this should
On 2011-03-01 3:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Charles Marcus:
Currently, using virtual for deliver, I'm getting these X-Original-To
headers, which I have gotten very used to and rely on - but if/when we
switch to dovecot+LMTP, we will lose them?
You can fake it in the SMTP server with
snip
On 2011-02-23 11:50 AM, sunhux G wrote:
Then I remove -v from smtpd in master.cf ( left behind -D), restarted
snip strace stuff
The following is the maillog indicating mail being sent from
gate1.mds.com.sg (this is the SMTP server of mds.com.sg domain,
possibly it's the Exchange server) :
On 2011-02-21 7:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Feb 21 13:41:52 postfix/smtp[14418]: warning: relayhost configuration problem
Feb 21 13:41:52 postfix/smtp[14418]: 2D60D3DF7: to=t...@test.thelounge.net,
relay=none, delay=0.05,
delays=0.03/0.01/0/0, dsn=4.3.5, status=deferred (mail for 127.0.0.1
On 2011-02-07 8:28 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/7/2011 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
mysql-recipients.cf is querying dbmail for valid addresses
dbmail do not have domain-aliases and so postfix should handle
this by saying thelounge.at is an alias for the lounge.net
and if someone sends a mal at
On 2011-02-08 4:39 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/8/2011 3:32 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-02-07 8:28 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
Don't use domain aliases.
Wildcard address rewrites disable recipient validation.
Postfixadmin (2.3.2+) has working recipient verification with alias
domains
On 2/5/2011 7:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.02.2011 12:37, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:44:39 -0600, Noel Jonesnjo...@megan.vbhcs.org
wrote:
At least set up a local caching resolver with 8.8.8.8 as the
forwarder.
in case of bind this is bad to use any forwarder since
On 2011-01-18 12:06 PM, Mark (Lunatechnologies) wrote:
If you look at the alias table (or file depending on your setup) for any
users that have activated VACATION, you should see something like this...
u...@domain.com u...@domain.com, u...@autoreply.domain.com
Correction: the above
On 2011-01-13 8:05 AM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
While Postfix works well with NFS, Dovecot has some serious issues with
it (according to their wiki and mailing list).
Only under specific circumstances... and it is an NFS issue, not dovecot...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2011-01-04 11:05 AM, mouss wrote:
- postfixadmin has a vacation.pl script. but I don't know its status now.
The latest version (2.3.2) is very good...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2010-12-29 10:14 AM, Joan Moreau wrote:
But I have no car to fix . What is that story about ?
In your first post, you vaguely described a 'problem':
the postfix queue manager (qmgr) is taking far too much resources when
the number of email pending is growing.
Now, I did not rule out
On 2010-12-29 12:45 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 08:29:18AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
I was wondering if it is possible to 'include' the contents of a file in
the mysql*.cf map files (although I guess if you can with these you can
with others)...
Use make(1
Hello,
I was wondering if it is possible to 'include' the contents of a file in
the mysql*.cf map files (although I guess if you can with these you can
with others)...
The reason I ask is, it would be nice when changing auth databases
(which I'm doing now), to just edit one file that contains
On 2010-12-20 2:03 AM, Ramesh wrote:
I am planning to configure backup MX for primary MX. i have few
queries..
snip
Please send suggestion's or URL to know more about this.
Don't bother... backup MX's should only be implemented by those who have
a very good reason for doing so, and are a
On 2010-12-08 9:21 AM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I didn't realize they were order specific..
it now reads:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks
permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination check_client_access
pcre:/etc/postfix/fqrdns.pcre, reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net,
On 2010-12-08 3:21 PM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I'm still getting LOTS of emails in thunderbird that have the junk
status flame turned on.
Thunderbirds 'Junk' controls are client side - ie, totally separate from
server-side spam stuff... and they do not add anything to an emails
headers...
If
On 2010-12-07 2:39 AM, Trigve Siver wrote:
Hi,
I'm having some problem with bounces. When someone send mail to my mail
server
and sender is not existent, postfix generate bounce. Bounce has empty
envelope
From set (from=) . I'm using relayhost and when sending bounce back I've
got
On 2010-11-16 5:15 AM, Sasa wrote:
because t...@hotmail.it isn't blocked ?
In my mail server I use postfix/amavisd-new, spamassassin, clamav and Maia.
Thanks.
Per the welcome message you received when you joined the list:
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
On 2010-11-14 8:57 PM, flip side wrote:
But if I post from the alternate account, I'm seeing nothing at all. I
agree with you that it looks as though nothing has arrived
When you added the secondary 'From' address, did you tell it to use
Googles servers or your own (postfix)?
--
Best
On 2010-11-10 2:52 AM, Rich wrote:
The only difference I would have on this server is I would make it a
10 raid and not raid5. This is a much more higher performing with all
the writes to maildir. Its also better fault tolerance.
I fail to see any reference to RAID5 in the text you quoted...
On 2010-11-02 10:07 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Last, but not least important by any means (understatement), you may
wish to try out:
http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre
Implement this as:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions
permit_mynetworks
permit_sasl_authenticated
On 2010-10-19 1:42 AM, Yang Zhang wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions is specified a second time.
A depressing amount of time was spent debugging this.
For future reference, this is exactly why you should never go by what
you see in main.cf (nor should you post excerpts from it here), but
On 2010-10-18 9:58 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
The instructions at http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
seem to only address what to do if MY server is the one being
forged. In the above example, it seems that procom.ca is being
forged. How should I configure my Postfix installation so
On 2010-10-18 4:02 PM, Christopher Koeber wrote:
OK, based on the config below I have achieved what I set out to do
below.
I'm far from expert, but some comments...
First - you are explicitly setting a lot of settings to their defaults -
this clutters postconf -n output needlessly.
postconf
On 2010-10-12 7:23 PM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
People, I just don't get it, what is the point of comments such as:
What did I forget?
In my opinion ? A brain.
and
What did I forget?
* rm -rf / (Read mail, really fast)
* A name
*
On 2010-10-12 4:04 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
I just wanted to know if it is possible to add a recipient to a
message which is queued?
What could possibly be the reason for this ?
Jeroen, please chill out...
He provided an example of a reputable MTA that provides a way to do
something that
On 2010-10-07 3:43 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
My Postfix gateway will be receiving inbound mail and unfortunately I
don't have the option this time to change DNS entries and some of the
maintenance will require receiving mail for this domain.
Normally, whenever we do maintenance, we edit
On 2010-10-07 4:33 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
When I apply for an SSL cert on the weekend and the SSL company uses
the WHOIS DB to send a confirmation email to me, how do I get my cert
_this weekend_ to have that stage of my maintenance completed? The
conf mail will have bounced?
Get the SSL
On 2010-10-04 2:15 PM, martin f krafft wrote:
With YOUR IP ? That's highly unlikely, to the point of unbelievability.
Yes, with my IP.
So your server is hacked?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 2010-09-28 6:43 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
You can also consider setting delay_warning_time to a non-zero value, 4h
is probably reasonable, so the user will be notified when their mail
isn't delivered in a timely manner.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#delay_warning_time
SMTP is reliable
On 2010-09-28 8:12 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Charles Marcus wrote:
Are you submitting this message via a webmail client?
Huh?
Maybe this is a web server/php upload size limitation?
No. What in the log excerpt makes you suspect that?
The 127.0.0.1 IP address - but obviously I replied without
On 2010-09-28 9:25 PM, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
And set a value for:
maximal_queue_lifetime (default: 5d)
And this I set to 1d... if the user wants to resend it again, they can.
These settings were what the owner of a company I do work for decided on
after I explained to him how smtp
On 2010-09-29 12:09 AM, Neil wrote:
Oh, I definitely do use 587/submission right now (as you might've
deduced from above). The reason I want 785 is because I recently find
myself visiting a network quite regularly where 25, 465, 587 are all
blocked (don't ask me why; doesn't make much sense to
On 2010-09-27 6:00 PM, Jim McIver wrote:
(message size 5414717 exceeds size limit 5242880 of server
127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1])
As already pointed out, this error is not from the postfix server, but
from the client...
Are you submitting this message via a webmail client?
Maybe this is a web
On 2010-09-27 6:29 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
As I see in answers, there are all-in-one systems for that, but they are
typically overblown (contain not only SMTP/IMAP/POP management, but also
Samba, webmail, DNS etc.) - not a tool which would do one thing, but do
it well (UI just for
On 2010-09-28 6:04 AM, Neil wrote:
I want to have postfix listen on an additional port (say 785) for SMTP
submission by clients.
You mean in *addition* to the submission port (587)? Or was that a typo
and you really want to listen on port 587?
At first I thought all I had to do was add
On 2010-09-22 6:01 PM, Nick Edwards wrote:
The dovecot developer would not care that dovecots pop3 speed
matches that of couriers pop3, he has stated publicly dovecot is
developed primarily as imap server, read the dovecot lists archives
if you are not subscribed there. Everyone knows that
On 2010-09-22 6:03 PM, Nick Edwards wrote:
By the way, I need to thank you, given your discussion with Timo was one
that had set alarm bells off on this, and the thread with Eddie
confirmed the risks, can't understand Timo's attitude towards it, but as
he said maybe dovecot is not for anyone
On 2010-09-24 3:51 PM, cajun wrote:
On 09/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
It's usually safe to copy them and let postfix upgrade them
Thanks Ralf! There's at least 10,000 things I don't know about Postfix.
This was certainly one of them.
Ralf didn't exactly say, so just wanted to
On 2010-09-21 2:47 AM, Nick Edwards nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
we see no reason to continue to use dovecot in its current state with
its inherit risks when courier has none of them, the move to courier is
now justified.
Just to correct the record...
Since the 'risk' you reference is
On 9/19/2010 8:29 AM, Len Conrad wrote:
I'm logged into the postscreen machine and su to root to work on
postfix and run dig.
Well that is your mistake. You must do the tests as an UNPRIVILEGED
user. Not root, not group wheel, none of that
It's a basic beginner mistake, but it's not my
On 2010-09-10 8:35 PM, Nick Edwards nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Charles Marcus
cmar...@media-brokers.com mailto:cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote:
Please note, we are silent lurkers, we know some of you are on both
lists, and aware of the threads I speak
On 2010-09-10 5:50 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Indexes can speed up IMAP performance a decent amount, but they don't
help POP performance at all.
Dovecots indexes speed up IMAP performance quite dramatically in most
cases, not just a 'decent amount', at least as compared to
On 2010-08-30 6:40 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
REJECTGeneric - Please relay via ISP (telesp.net.br)
Thanks for this Stan, but just to confirm, was that supposed to be a TAB
between REJECT and Generic?
Also - why a generic comment to relay via telesp.net.br? I'm
On 2010-08-31 12:22 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Charles Marcus put forth on 8/31/2010 6:48 AM:
Also - why a generic comment to relay via telesp.net.br? I'm thinking to
change this to just 'Please relay via your ISP'...
Not sure what you're asking here Charles.
Probably
On 2010-08-31 4:06 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Have you browsed over that file Charles? There are over 1600 fully
qualified rDNS pattens, one per line. Most are specific to a particular
ISP, and those all have unique custom reject messages with the ISP name
in them.
On 2010-08-30 8:56 AM, Jean-Yves Avenard jyaven...@gmail.com wrote:
Moving from sendmail to a macos 10.6 server that ships with postfix..
Per the welcome message you received when you joined the list:
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
This means, at a
Thanks for taking the time to try to assist my limited brain in
understanding this Noel. It is frustrating, because I thought I at least
had a decent handle on how these checks worked...
Noel Jones wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions is not the last section; the message
still must pass
On 2010-08-24 8:58 AM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 8/24/2010 7:41 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I guess I need some clarification now...
My understanding is this is not true if you have all checks under
recipient_restrictions (and delay_reject enabled) - an OK in this
case
On 8/7/2010 11:32 AM, Mihira Fernando wrote:
This looks very interesting. I assume that SASL backend is also using
cyrus ?
Can I suggest/request you add options for Dovecot IMAP and SASL backend
as well ?
+10
I only use dovecot, now and in the future...
Great work and all the best.
Vasya Pupkin wrote:
I'm my own only customer. And I understand risks of disabling bounce
feature. I understand that someone will not get a notification if his
email will not be delivered to me, but I can live with it.
It is still solving the wrong problem, and possibly (probably?) someday
you
Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
Port 25 outgoing will be blocked by most ISPs
This may be the case in your country, but from where I'm from, I've
never had a problem sending out on port 25, even on home residental
ISPs :)
Any ISP that does *not* block port 25 for residential service is a part
of
Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
Any ISP that does *not* block port 25 for residential service is a part
of the spam/zombie problem, and if yours doesn't, you should complain,
loudly if necessary, and encourage them to block it.
Every ISP in the UK?
Every one that is not, at a bare minimum, closely
On 2010-07-21 11:16 AM, Gordan Bobic gor...@bobich.net wrote:
If you want that level of service, upgrade to a service that
provides it, and that will be at least minimally monitored for
abuse (it is in the ISPs best interest to avoid getting their IP
addresses on blacklists).
Absolute
201 - 300 of 601 matches
Mail list logo
