On 9/2/2009, Victor Duchovni (victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com) wrote:
A bit too soon, given typical grey-listing minimum retry timers. I
would not send delay notices sooner than an hour after a message has
been queued. FWIW, I use a 2 hour delay warning.
Hmmm... I just realized why we
On 8/18/2009 9:42 AM, Hilel New wrote:
I can't submit to this list
You just did...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 8/13/2009 8:01 AM, Joerg Toellner wrote:
Hi Postfix-Group,
snip
Any ideas appreciated. Would someone enlighten me, please? If you need more
information or some parts of the config file posted, please don't hesitate
to ask for it.
Thanks in advance for reading, your effort and maybe a
On 8/6/2009, Santiago Romero (srom...@servicom2000.com) wrote:
By adding the following to my main.cf, I'll check RCPT TO addresses
against primary MX, except when PRIMARY MX doesn't answer. In that case,
I'll accept any destination for my relay_domains list, just like I was
doing before adding
On 8/6/2009 12:29 PM, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
address_verify_map = btree:/var/lib/postfix/verify
address_verify_positive_refresh_time = 14d
unverified_recipient_defer_code = 250
You are correct, but this is NOT the recommended way...
Don't change the unverified_recipient_defer_code to 250...
On 8/5/2009, Mikael Bak (mik...@t-online.hu) wrote:
So, do you mean that changing this parameter to 250 would make postfix
to accept the email?
No.
Actually, the answer to his question is yes.
You should leave this parameter in its default value.
Correct - but he specifically asked if he
On 8/4/2009, Dave (dave.meh...@gmail.com) wrote:
For reject_unverified_sender what would be a
better way of dealing with it?
Only use it for domains which you control or have agreements with...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Please don't top-post...
On 7/30/2009, AMP Admin (ad...@ampprod.com) wrote:
Sorry. Didn't think about this going to a thread and just hit reply and
changed the title. haha
Thats exactly what 'hijacking' is, and it isn't funny... haha
I meant more what is the Nemesis part. What kind of mail
On 7/31/2009 8:12 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I meant more what is the Nemesis part. What kind of mail server is that?
I think most if not all smtp servers can customize the banner to say
whatever they want, so you can't really tell anything specific/precise
about a server jujst from the
On 7/31/2009, AMP Admin (ad...@ampprod.com) wrote:
telnet only gives 220 smtp.perfora.net (mrus1) Welcome to Nemesis ESMTP
server oh well. Thanks anyway.
I meant a session where you actually submit mail, and make submissions
that will fail.
You can tell a lot from the error messages...
--
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Of course we don't know which email addresses are valid so all mail for
the domain is accepted on our servers.
That is your problem to be fixed. Maybe this helps:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html#recipient
--
On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy services.
This way only address verification is needed when the mail passes the
rbls en policies?
Actually, I think
On 7/30/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Mmmm, I'm using transport maps to forward mail to the final mail
server. So the verify should contact the remote server and I think
that is almost as expensive as a RBL check.
I don't think so, but am not certain... hopefully
On 7/30/2009 10:51 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
Address verify callouts are quite time consuming, so quite expensive -
much more than an RBL lookup. However, when valid recipients are found
in the cache, the impact on mail should be very low.
Thanks for correcting me... that is good to know.
So
On 7/27/2009, Martijn de Munnik (mart...@youngguns.nl) wrote:
Are there ways to block these spam attacks?
Don't use catchalls for live/normal domains...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 7/19/2009, Charles Sprickman (sp...@bway.net) wrote:
We are primarily using POP, but with more iPhone users, and a new
mail server that actually lets me dole out more space, I think we'll
likely push IMAP more.
Incidentally, the iPhone has one of the best IMAP clients I've seen on a
phone.
On 7/20/2009, LuKreme (krem...@kreme.com) wrote:
Before I bought my iTouch last year I thought I was going to hate the
touch-screen keyboard, but the auto correction and the editing is so
easy that it's not much of an issue. Now with the 3GS I am even
willing to type fairly long emails with it
On 7/18/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
-Continued use of Courier-IMAP. Not so much because I like it, but I
don't want POP UUIDs changing or any big changes in IMAP quirks that
suddenly cause users grief. It seems like Courier+Maildrop is fairly
common though, so I think I'm safe
On 7/18/2009, Jumping Mouse (kafr...@hotmail.com) wrote:
Here is my main.cf
# Postfix master process configuration file. For details on the format
postconf -n output only please...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 7/18/2009, Res (r...@ausics.net) wrote:
Oh... and although I did recommend moving to dovecot, if all you use is
POP, and there is no chance you will be switching to IMAP, then it I
don't think you'd see any benefit switching to dovecot...
Except the performance increase under Dovecot
On 7/18/2009, Sahil Tandon (sa...@tandon.net) wrote:
Just so I understand, you don't use POP3 on the server you manage;
you have never compared POP3 performance on Dovecot vs.
$something_else, but you are commenting on the lack of performance
benefit? :)
Only because I've been on the dovecot
On 7/18/2009 11:23 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
See: http://wiki.dovecot.org/POP3Server
Yep, seems to say something similar...
What's with all the ellipses?! Finish your thought! :)
Ok, I'll try... ;)
On 7/16/2009, Wietse Venema (wie...@porcupine.org) wrote:
Charon is not too bad. Certainly better than zzapper or zkiller
and other ugly names that I did not mention.
How about praetorian...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 7/16/2009, Charles Sprickman (sp...@bway.net) wrote:
-Continued use of Courier-IMAP. Not so much because I like it, but I
don't want POP UUIDs changing or any big changes in IMAP quirks that
suddenly cause users grief. It seems like Courier+Maildrop is fairly
common though, so I think I'm
On 7/16/2009 11:56 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
I'm still open for program name suggestions. If someone has a better
name than swatter or halligan let me know. Once the name changes,
all the configuration parameters will change, too.
prefix? It fixes things before they become a problem...
On 7/13/2009, Keld Jørn Simonsen (k...@dkuug.dk) wrote:
I am getting it via fetchmail
snip
If you are getting it through fetchmail, then the message has already
been delivered... so you MUST NOT reject it later, *especially* if it is
spam - unless of course you really *want* to end up
On 7/11/2009, Kenneth Stephen (marvin.the.cynical.ro...@gmail.com) wrote:
I'm interpreting the warning: not enough free space in mail queue:
x bytes message as postfix telling me that there are x bytes free on
the filesystem. I can see that this number decreasing between 2AM
(approx 15MB free)
On 7/9/2009, Rocco Scappatura (rocco.scappat...@infracom.it) wrote:
# postconf -d | grep tls
? This shows defaults... please use postconf -n output - and no need to
filter it, it won't (shouldn't) be all that long...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 7/9/2009, Robert Lopez (rlopez...@gmail.com) wrote:
If these restriction mechanisms share a common hash file for their check,
for example:
/etc/postfix/main.cf
...
smtpd_client_restrictions = check_client_access
hash:/etc/postfix/access_hash ...
...
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
On 7/8/2009, K bharathan (kbhara...@gmail.com) wrote:
is it effective if i use sender verification; i understand there is a
risk of getting blacklisted the mail server that's doing the SAV;
what could be the guidelines for putting this in postfix
guidance appreciated
Only use SAV against
On 7/8/2009 2:16 PM, New Old Stk wrote:
Looks like I spoke to early about tricky Cisco router. Just had our
modem/router equipment replaced, hoping it would fix the problem but to
no avail! I give up.
Replaced... with another Cisco?
If so, try to disable smtp_fixup on it...
--
Best
On 7/2/2009 12:20 PM, Jaroslaw Grzabel wrote:
I'm struggling with new SMTP server and I noticed that sometimes it just
hangs because of:
Per the welcome message you received when you joined the list:
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
At a minimum, postfix
On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
I've read a few archive posts regarding the generation of bounce/ndr
messages and I can understand some of the cutting remarks such as 'don't
accept mail for invalid users in the first place'.
Yep - but accepting for invalid users
On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
switch of bounce/ndr messages.
Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp...
Otherwise, the CEO of your new biggest prospect will never know that his
'I'll take it!'
On 6/29/2009 2:41 PM, Steve wrote:
You are, of course, correct. It would be totally retarded to be able to
switch of bounce/ndr messages.
Yes, it would, since it breaks smtp...
So does the notion of 'Before Queue Filtering'. I think it goes
something like 'You must decide to accept or
On 6/29/2009, EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
And this come to think of it: strict_rfc821_envelopes
We can disable.
? It is disabled by default.
If you mean you can enable this, you should be aware it *will* block
legitimate mail.
That said, it has nothing to do with your desire
On 6/29/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
Genius coders often don't see why something matters to an end user.
They get stuck in arguing the semantics.
It is impossible to communicate effectively without using well defined
terms...
Maybe you should look up the meaning of
On 6/24/2009, MSG Support (msgsupport@gmail.com) wrote:
My current postfix version installed is postfix-2.2.10-1.1.el4
This is really old... upgrading to a more current release would be a
good thing in any case...
The user's mail over-quota, it will automatically send a bounced mail
to
On 6/18/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
That said, the IP tables idea is much better.
Not from what you've said. Why not just shut the entire server OFF...
power it down.
But, I agree with everyone else... this is just plain silliness, a waste
of time, energy, and will,
I need our users to be able to send and receive large messages (max
50MB) to/from remote destinations, but *not* when sending to each other
(local mail only)...
Is there a way to do this without a policy server?
myhost ~ # postconf -n
alias_maps = hash:/etc/mail/aliases,
On 6/11/2009 3:12 AM, K bharathan wrote:
till yesterday there're no probs; suddenly two of my postfix relays not
connecting the exchange2003; i cannot ping or telnet from the relays to
exchange; exchange has got symantec endpoint protection and its
firewall; what could've gone wrong!
Per the
On 6/10/2009 12:16 AM, June Qiu wrote:
I can send short emails (1KB) from my mailserver (abc.domain.com) to
gmail account (t...@gmail.com), but for larger emails (7KB), it
fails. It gets deferred on the mail queue forever. But this same mail
can be sent to yahoo.
Am I missing something?
On 6/2/2009, Just E. Mail (justem...@imwell-usa.com) wrote:
I am setting up LVS. I have two Real Servers running CentOS,
PostgeSQL Client, freeRADIUS, Postfix, etc. Both of the Real Servers
access data from the backend PostgreSQL Server.
I have setup freeRADIUS application. It authenticates
On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix? There is a lot of
'half' documentation Ralf and plenty of 'assumed that you know'. It the
documentation was s great I would not have had to ask on a list for
something
On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix?
http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html
?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 5/9/2009, Curtis (postfixu...@isparks.com) wrote:
I'm not talking about invalid recipients. We bounce email sent to
invalid recipients at smtp time.
It helps avoid confusion to use the correct terms when discussing things
like this...
What you describe above is not BOUNCING, it is
On 5/7/2009 7:30 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
relayhost = [post18.emailfiltering.com]
Interesting.
May 6 15:22:06 myhost postfix/smtpd[4799]: connect from
ixe-mta-18-tx.emailfiltering.com[194.116.198.213]
May 6 15:22:06 myhost postfix/smtpd[4799]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
On 5/8/2009 10:20 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
I thought that since the check was under smtpd_recipient_restrictions
that all of those checks would be applied before the recipient was
'validated'... apparently that assumption was incorrect and the
source of my problem...
Well, they ARE, but you're
On 5/6/2009 10:45 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Show entire output instead of snippets via grep.
Sorry... I didn't provide the full output because this config has been
vetted here before, and this specific config weakness that was exploited
had already been pointed out, but obviously you don't know
On 5/7/2009 9:05 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
I see no obvious problems in your config.
Unless I'm missing something:
Yes, I think you are missing something (see below)... ;)
- you can't control what other people send, or how often they send it.
- rejecting messages is a relatively low-overhead
On 5/7/2009, Noel Jones (njo...@megan.vbhcs.org) wrote:
But I'd still like to understand the mechanism involved, and what
this guy did to trigger this flood of messages...
A broken autoresponder?
I wasn't sending him anything to respond to (other than the smtp rejects).
Broken content
On 5/6/2009, Gaël Lams (lamsg...@gmail.com) wrote:
I modified master.cf and configure submission that way:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_enforce_tls=yes
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o
On 5/6/2009, Rik (hlug090...@buzzhost.co.uk) wrote:
As it stands, this list gets poorly posed or lazy questions from
time to time, usually from new users. The trend in these cases is
that the new user ends up feeling insulted. This may well be the
poster's own fault for not respecting how this
On 5/6/2009 8:37 AM, Jorey Bump wrote:
I modified master.cf and configure submission that way:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_enforce_tls=yes
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o
On 5/6/2009 9:03 AM, Jorey Bump wrote:
I believe newer versions (I'm on 2.5.6) should be something like:
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_tls_auth_only=yes
-o
Hi everyone,
Ok, I have a question...
First, I've never claimed to be smarter than the average amoeba
(although I think possibly I grill a better steak), and I do seem to
recall some time ago someone (mouss, was that you?) saying that the way
I was blocking senders might have unintended
On 4/27/2009, xul...@onlineok.com (xul...@onlineok.com) wrote:
Error output from a test SMTP session:
We need logs, not clients interpretation...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 4/24/2009, Vince Sabio (vi...@vjs.org) wrote:
I'd rather not post information like that _pro forma_; if there's
some subset of that information that might be of help in diagnosing
this issue, then I'd be happy to post it. I realize that my
reluctance to post the entire data set might limit
On 4/22/2009 11:57 AM, wiskbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello;
My users NDR's are not arriving until the 5 day retry period has lapsed,
creating issues whereby time critical emails are not getting out due to their
unawareness of this matter.
I've tried several changes in my main.cf, none
On 4/22/2009, wiskbr...@hotmail.com (wiskbr...@hotmail.com) wrote:
What about for undeliverable address: unknown user:? I set
delay_warning_time to 120m and after 2 hours never received any
warnings at all that my email was rejected due to being sent to an
undeliverable address, user unknown
On 4/16/2009 3:11 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
My mail provider says they can query an LDAP database, but can't offer
much assistance to me in setting it up.
Baiscally now I use /etc/posfix/aliases, but that's obviously useless
for LDAP.
Surprising - they can't do recipient verification (doesn't
On 4/16/2009 3:27 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
So - if my username is joesmith, use say joesmith+abcincorporated @
mydomain . com?
Yes...
Well, the problem is whenever I sign up for a list or make a purchase, I
create a new one, so I'd be sending them a list pretty often, hence the
idea of LDAP.
On 4/16/2009 4:05 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
At 12:44 PM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
No... as long as they support plus addressing, you give them your main
address - joesm...@example.com - then they will accept anything
addressed to joesmith+anyth...@example.com, and reject everything else.
That's
On 4/8/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
I'd say go for the popular one: mailman.
The only thing I *don't* like about mailman is it doesn't natively
support virtual domains. It can be made to work, but it requires a lot
of hacking...
Other than that, its great...
--
Best regards,
On 4/8/2009, Patrick Ben Koetter (p...@state-of-mind.de) wrote:
I'd say go for the popular one: mailman.
The only thing I *don't* like about mailman is it doesn't natively
support virtual domains. It can be made to work, but it requires a
lot of hacking...
This will change in Mailman 3.
On 3/26/2009, Noel Jones (njo...@megan.vbhcs.org) wrote:
(A better design is to have a separate IP for official mail and
another IP used for client internet access. Then client misbehavior
doesn't affect the mail system. of course that means you must have
more than one IP...)
I like this
On 3/26/2009, Ivan Ricotti (i.rico...@elabor.homelinux.org) wrote:
Here it is my main.cf:
No. Please follow the instructions provided in the welcome message.
At a minimum, we need output of postconf -n (NOT copy/paste from
main.cf), and complete logs showing the spam going out...
the less
On 3/26/2009, Jim Wright (j...@wrightthisway.com) wrote:
Two options. 1, Eliminate windows users from your network.
Please... such comments are worse than useless...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 3/26/2009, Ivan Ricotti (i.rico...@elabor.homelinux.org) wrote:
Mar 26 09:27:11 athene postfix/smtpd[29704]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail02.mail.esat.net[193.120.142.82]: 450 4.1.1
3f6f17ca.813b5...@elabor.homelinux.org: Recipient address rejected:
undeliverable address: unknown user:
On 3/21/2009, Jeff Huang (jbhu...@scut.edu.cn) wrote:
OK,Thanks.
I'll try cyrus imap.
Now I use Courier-imap as my imap/pop3 server.
You'd be much better off trying dovecot, unless you need something
specific that cyrus provides and dovecot does not.
Be sure you use the current
On 3/22/2009 9:27 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
You'd be much better off trying dovecot, unless you need something
specific that cyrus provides and dovecot does not.
But then he wouldn't be using courier now :)
lol good point...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 3/19/2009 5:55 AM, LuKreme wrote:
You may generate the pcre file with a line
/recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
for each valid recipient. This would preserve the validation of
recipient at RCPT TO stage.
Interesting... and maybe a good candidate for my first
On 3/17/2009, Chris Dos (ch...@chrisdos.com) wrote:
Sorry, I did have:
recipient_delimiter = +
in another part of my main.cf file.
One reason why the DEBUG_README asks (among other things) that you
provide output of postconf -n instead of snips from main.cf.
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 3/17/2009 6:47 AM, LuKreme wrote:
I rewrite foo_...@example.com to foo+...@example.com
virtaul.pcre:
/^(.*)_(.*)@example.com$/${1}+$...@example.com
virtual_alias_maps =
hash:$config_directory/virtual
pcre:$config_directory/virtual.pcre,
On 3/17/2009, LuKreme (krem...@kreme.com) wrote:
On 17-Mar-2009, at 06:09, Erwan David wrote:
I would fear it breaks recipient validation, accepting mail for eavery
address with a _ as valid.
That is a drawback.
Oh... well, if it does indeed do what Erwan said, it isn't just a
drawback, it
On 3/17/2009, LuKreme (krem...@kreme.com) wrote:
On 17-Mar-2009, at 07:30, Charles Marcus wrote:
So, is there no way to rewrite the recipient and *then* validate it?
Sure, but not until after you've accepted the message.
Ummm... WRONG. Recipient VALIDATION, by DEFINITION, must occur BEFORE
On 3/17/2009 9:43 AM, Erwan David wrote:
You may generate the pcre file with a line
/recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
for each valid recipient. This would preserve the validation of
recipient at RCPT TO stage.
Interesting... and maybe a good candidate for my
On 3/13/2009, George Forman (georgeforma...@hotmail.com) wrote:
The DNS record is hosted by primary A. Primary A determines if the
account is to be sent to secondary B (a Postfix MTA). When secondary
B, tries to deliver the mail via lmtp and lmtp rejects depositing the
mail message, a bounce
On 3/13/2009 9:53 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
The DNS record is hosted by primary A. Primary A determines if
the account is to be sent to secondary B (a Postfix MTA). When
secondary B, tries to deliver the mail via lmtp and lmtp rejects
depositing the mail message,a bounce message is generated.
On 3/10/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
it's not that hard. the hard part is to make sure that how recalls only
recalls his own mail. This is easy via a web interface which requires
user authentication (aka webmail). if everything is done by mail, then
it's a bit harder unless you
On 3/11/2009 9:38 AM, LuKreme wrote:
I have a file /etc/postfix/virtual.pcre that contains lines like this:
/^(.*)_(.*)@example.com$/${1}+$...@example.com
/^(.*)_(.*)@example.org$/${1}+$...@example.org
/^(.*)_(.*)@example.net$/${1}+$...@example.net
etc etc. This is to allow
On 3/11/2009 10:44 AM, mme...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah i know. It's better to discard the message.
Actually, its best to REJECT the message...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 3/11/2009 3:55 PM, LuKreme wrote:
Sorry, not possible. Also the above defeats recipient validation for
email addresses with _ in them, it is not recommended.
Yep, I am aware of that. In this case, however, the ability to use a
second delimiter far outweighs the lack of recipient
On 3/9/2009 6:12 PM, mouss wrote:
It will never fail that the user will decide right after clicking the
send button that they want to recall it, no matter how long they wait
prior to sending...
and they will also decide to recall it after it was released ;-p
Of course... but all joking
On 3/10/2009, Victor Duchovni (victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com) wrote:
There are two decent books and I find that tabbed browsing makes it easy to
not lose context. Certainly the links to postconf.5.html don't usually
require too many levels of nesting, so first read the tutorial, open
On 3/8/2009, Wietse Venema (wie...@porcupine.org) wrote:
It is not created with Star Trek transporter beams that materialize a
complete object all at once.
I am very disappointed. I began using postfix based solely on the
assurance of one person that Start Trek transporter beams could most
On 3/9/2009, Costin Gu_ (costi...@gmail.com) wrote:
yes, it's true that people expect instant delivery; however I was
thinking at short delays such as 5 minutes, since most regrettable
errors are discovered within the next few seconds following the event,
so keeping the mail in queue for
On 3/9/2009, Jorey Bump (l...@joreybump.com) wrote:
Isn't this best implemented at the MUA level? At the very least, a user
can simply save drafts of all composed email, then review send
messages periodically. Not only does this address the problem, it is
more convenient for everyone,
On 3/7/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
if all extensions are acceptable (not very recommended),
Ok, this caught my attention...
Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on the
fly... thje purpose for using the extension will be for signing up for
different
On 3/7/2009, Noel Jones (njo...@megan.vbhcs.org) wrote:
Some third-party IMAP servers may support deliver to any extension
subfolder, I haven't looked.
They do... both cyrus and dovecot, and I think courier maildrop does as
well...
Since I'm going to be converting to dovecot soon, I'll be
On 3/7/2009 1:45 PM, LuKreme wrote:
Yes, I was planning on allowing any extension to be used/made up on
the fly... thje purpose for using the extension will be for signing
up for different sites/lists/things, so I can use the same address,
but be able to distinguish mail that comes to me via
On 3/6/2009 3:43 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 6-Mar-2009, at 12:27, Charles Marcus wrote:
Hmmm... I'm now wondering if ${extension} can somehow be used with the
virtual_mailbox_maps query to accomplish what I want?
Yes, but you need procmail (or, I assume, Maildrop)
Many thanks for the detail
On 3/3/2009 7:18 PM, LuKreme wrote:
opendns works very well, as long as you disable the helper crap,
so, no, has nothing to do with opendns.
Since one of the features of OpenDNS Is the so-called helper crap,
and is enabled by default, this can easily be a problem.
For the clueless maybe, but
On 3/4/2009, Robert A. Ober (ro...@robob.com) wrote:
# dovecot -n command gives a clean output of the changed settings. Use it
# instead of copypasting this file when posting to the Dovecot mailing list.
# --with-ssldir=/etc/ssl
You need to read the welcome message you got...
ONLY provide
Hi Robert,
You need to read the responses you are getting...
PS: postfix -n gives invalid option.
This is because of this:
If I recall correctly the OP reported using Postfix 2.2 and- should
see:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_sasl_type
attempts to use Dovecot SASL auth
On 3/4/2009, Scent-Sations Support (grkni...@scent-team.com) wrote:
Charles means 'postconf -n'.
This gives us a better picture of what Postfix is using and avoids fat
finger mistakes.
Ooops... lol, sorry, thanks for catching that...
On 3/4/2009 12:26 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Dovecot has added two lines of text to the beginning output of dovecot
-n that could possibly save some time with troubleshooting...
It adds the version on the first line, and OS/platform info on the
second line, like so:
# 1.1.11:
On 3/4/2009, PaweB Le[niak (warl...@lesniakowie.com) wrote:
Looking at first email in thread carefully you'd see that Dave has
(or had) problem with spam sent from j...@foo.com to j...@foo.com. And
that's the case where authentication will do the job perfectly - IMHO
way better then zen.
On 3/4/2009 2:36 PM, Paweł Leśniak wrote:
I was just talking about something that would make it easier when
someone was asking for help on the list... I don't think the above will
quite accomplish that...
In many cases (I'm not gonna do statistics) new users do not post their
questions
On 3/3/2009 2:17 PM, LuKreme wrote:
host -t a 27a28250f4b7c74acc01d042687e2273.com
Perhaps they are using OpenDNS?
opendns works very well, as long as you disable the helper crap, so, no,
has nothing to do with opendns.
401 - 500 of 601 matches
Mail list logo
