On 2/26/2009 11:00 AM, Magnus Bäck wrote:
You need to disable it on one side, but then enable it on the other.
In addition to receive_override_options = no_address_mappings in
main.cf
Add something like
-o receive_override_options=
to the other side that you've defined in master.cf
I
On 2/26/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
Can't you configure outlook to save copies on your imap server? I
don't have outlook but if my memory is correct, this is possible
(otherwise, it's time to switch to thunderbird :)
Outlook 2007 finally provided a direct way to do this. Earlier
Hello,
I'm sure this is something I'm totally missing but I have a system I'm
trying to get plus addressing working, and not having any luck. The
email is delivered, but just to the Inbox, not to the folder...
I've got the recipient delimiter enabled in main.cf (output of postconf
-n shows it
On 2/21/2009, post...@corwyn.net (post...@corwyn.net) wrote:
I think our thought process is different. I have a technical thing I
want to do (and understand in postfix). So it depends on how you
define things as a problem.
Fair enough, but the email subject and problem description were, why
On 2/21/2009, post...@corwyn.net (post...@corwyn.net) wrote:
Alternatively, change your delivery config so that mail to
*+s...@yourdomain.example uses a different delivery mechanism, one that
doesn't call your vacation script.
See, I knew there'd be a way in postfix. Can you provide a quick
On 2/20/2009, Charles Marcus (cmar...@media-brokers.com) wrote:
Spam assassin sets the x-spam header on the way in. When it gets sent
back out, it doesn't get spam headers added. And since it's a reply,
the fact that spam headers were set set on the way in doesn't matter
since those headers
On 2/20/2009, Andi Raicu (raicua...@gmail.com) wrote:
I don't want to be in the situation where I didn't create an account
to the new server and emails that were supposed to be recieved are
now, well, kind of lost; so I need a catch-all email.
catchalls are almost never a good idea... it
On 2/20/2009 10:42 AM, post...@corwyn.net wrote:
Let's try a different approach. Let's say a user, spamt...@example.com,
sends mail to a user test...@example.com, which includes the GTUBE sting
(guaranteed to make it flag as spam). test...@example.com has vacation
turned on.
On 2/19/2009 2:40 PM, post...@corwyn.net wrote:
Spam assassin is configured to not add spam headers to outbound mail, so
that won't help. (I don't want to flag my own outbound mail as spam).
Eh? Who's talking about outbound email? Vacation.pl only executes for
inbound mail.
There's not a way
On 2/13/2009, sim085 (sim...@hotmail.com) wrote:
Any suggestions?
You'll get a lot more help if you follow the instructions that were in
the welcome message you got when you signed up to the list...
Specifically and for starters, output of postconf -n and logs exhibiting
the problem?
--
Best
On 2/13/2009 6:36 AM, deconya wrote:
Im new postfix and Im learning how to use. My first problem is about the
spam because in my server are incoming mails with my domain but using
bad adresses and making copy to the aol.com http://aol.com domain. Im
making:
Don't accept messages for invalid
Hello again,
I just want to confirm before I change this that I'm not missing
something that will cause me some pain...
Currently I have all of my restrictions under
smtpd_recipient_restrictions, but after seeing some questions about
these on the list, I'm thinking that there are two that should
On 2/13/2009, Justin Piszcz (jpis...@lucidpixels.com) wrote:
I have one question to add to this thread, in the past it has always
been up to the admin whether to put all beneath recipient
restrictions (with the exception of SAV), is this still considered
best-practice? Or should one follow
On 2/13/2009, gianluca...@interfree.it (gianluca...@interfree.it) wrote:
Is it possible relay mail trhough smstps under postfix?
Assuming you meant smtps, you can enable this in master.cf, by
uncommenting these lines (I'm unsure what the last line does though):
#smtps inet n -
On 2/13/2009 2:08 PM, Joseph Mays wrote:
We have long had a postfix system for a cluster of machines that accepts
incoming mail from a spam filtering system, and sends outgoing mail
directly out to other servers in the world. I am currently trying to
change it to send outgoing mail out through
On 2/13/2009 3:42 PM, mouss wrote:
you can do this
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/moved-employees,
Ah! I never even considered I could put check_recipient_access under
smtpd_sender_restrictions... but if I can put check_client_access under
On 2/13/2009 4:23 PM, mouss wrote:
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/moved-employees,
Ah! I never even considered I could put check_recipient_access under
smtpd_sender_restrictions... but if I can put check_client_access under
smtpd_recipient_restrictions,
On 2/13/2009, mouss (mo...@ml.netoyen.net) wrote:
because in your original post, the check in question was before
permit_*, so doesn't need a permit_* when moved.
Actually, I guess that was confusing, but...
The check that is above the permit_* in my original post was the
On 2/11/2009, Vittorio Manfredini (vitto...@vitsoft.bz) wrote:
I setup amavisd-new to rejict messages that are disoverd as SPAM, but
seem that postfix bounce this messages and sent a sender non-delivery
notification.
Never bounce a message once its been accepted.
Either setup amavisd-new as a
On 2/10/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
Right now, I'm preparing my top 10 domains used in spam and enabling SAV
for those.
Do you have their PERMISSION? If not, then DON'T... otherwise you risk
getting BLACKLISTED. I know that *I* will blackilist you for doing this,
On 2/10/2009 1:49 PM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
Charles Marcus escreveu:
Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
it should be used for:
http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
OK, I've finished reading and analyzing that text. My conclusion
On 2/8/2009, João Miguel Neves (joao.ne...@intraneia.com) wrote:
I recently enabled reject_unverified_sender in my postfix configuration,
but it seems like it fails when the server against which the sender is
verified uses greylisting. I've been getting log entries like (@ were
replaced by
On 2/9/2009 9:36 AM, João Miguel Neves wrote:
That would mean that the most useful use of SAV is negated. Or is there
some prior arrangement that would allow me to do that to hotmail.com,
gmail.com, yahoo.com*?
I'm going to reduce the target domains, but is there a known agreement
with MS,
On 2/4/2009, David Bishop (t...@gnuconsulting.com) wrote:
So are you recommending dropping courier for imap/pop completely? Or
just using the SASL portion of dovecot? I guess I don't particularly
care what imap/pop server I use, as long as it can use a
crypted-password from a mysql database,
On 1/21/2009 8:46 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
I try to keep my postconf -n output clean/small by not explicitly
setting anything that is not different from the default (postconf -d),
and I just noticed that my postconf -n output contains the following:
config_directory = /etc/postfix
On 1/21/2009, Victor Duchovni (victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com) wrote:
Your question cannot be answered based just on the data you have
provided.
Many thanks for the response Victor... I've been trying to digest it
fully... I thought I had a good, basic understanding of the different
address
On 1/23/2009 11:33 AM, bharathan kailath wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.797 tagged_above=2 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116,
FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457,
MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001]
the above
On 1/23/2009, Victor Duchovni (victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com) wrote:
- recipient delimiter, the + or sometimes - (...)
character that separates the base address from the address:
- extension, the rest of the address localpart between
the delimiter and the domain.
On 1/22/2009, ram (r...@netcore.co.in) wrote:
I have a got a stupid problem. We have some customers saying they
can't and don't want to reconfigure their mail servers even if
Planet-X hits Earth and that would help to avoid it :) And their MTAs
always responds with:
If they are that brain
Hello,
I try to keep my postconf -n output clean/small by not explicitly
setting anything that is not different from the default (postconf -d),
and I just noticed that my postconf -n output contains the following:
config_directory = /etc/postfix
and this setting is the default (included in
Hello,
I am cleaning up a friends postfix install, and just want to confirm
something...
His system uses only virtual users, and according to the man page,
home_mailbox is only for local users, so, considering the following
complete postconf -n output, I think I can safely remove this setting?
On 1/21/2009, Guy (wyldf...@gmail.com) wrote:
I was mostly just wanting to know what guys on this list thought of
Dovecot delivery.
One thing to be aware of... dovecot sasl auth does not support CLIENT
side SASL suth, only server side...
So, if you use postfix, and need postfix to be able to
On 1/14/2009, Rupert Reid (isingl...@madasafish.com) wrote:
What is fail2ban and how would I implement that?
Google is your friend...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 1/13/2009, Roland Plüss (rol...@rptd.ch) wrote:
Unfortunately nothing except SASL not working ( if telnetting to 25 ). I
tried tons of tutorials but the SASL stays broken. Most probably a
GenToo problem I suspect.
Actually, I've been using SASL on gentoo for years, so it is more likely
a
Hello,
I want to convert my table lookups to use the proxymap service, but have
a question...
The docs for proxy_read_maps states:
proxy_read_maps (default: see postconf -d output)
The lookup tables that the proxymap(8) server is allowed to access
for the read-only service. Table
On 1/11/2009, Victor Duchovni (victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com) wrote:
First question... is there a reason that none of the *_limit_maps are
included in proxy_read_maps by default? I.e., maybe doing this is not
recommended?
Ask the maintainers of the unofficial VDA quota patch.
I didn't
On 12/19/2008, Pedro Augusto (augusto.pe...@gmail.com) wrote:
It works perfectly, I have no problems sending or receiving e-mail
but sometimes the user can't receive any e-mail using his client
(such as Outlook Express) or through webmail. When we check the mail
file, the first line is full of
On 12/15/2008, neugi (neu...@gmail.com) wrote:
complete config:
Always show output of postconf -n, not copy/paste from main.cf...
Someone else recently discovered they were editing the wrong main.cf
file this way...
On 12/15/2008 2:34 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Mon, December 15, 2008 11:19, neugi wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
On 12/15/2008 2:44 PM, Roland Plüss wrote:
# grep smtpd_recipient_restrictions main.cf
If you see two occurences or more, you have redefined it. postfix only
uses the last.
Looks like on of the latest etc-update must have smuggled a line in.
Thats gentoo-speak for 'ooops, I fat-fingered the
On 12/15/2008 3:13 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
# grep smtpd_recipient_restrictions main.cf
If you see two occurences or more, you have redefined it. postfix only
uses the last.
Looks like on of the latest etc-update must have smuggled a line in.
Thats gentoo-speak for 'ooops, I fat-fingered
On 12/15/2008, Roland Plüss (rol...@rptd.ch) wrote:
Oh... and this is why I put all of my customizations for postfix at the
very end of the file, in its own block... then, even if something slips
in above, my custom settings will override it.
But, I am always very careful when running
On 12/13/2008, Ville Walveranta (walvera...@gmail.com) wrote:
Unfortunately I don't control the MX that initially accepts the mails
(beyond accepting/rejecting an email for a specific address).
There are really very, very few situations where you should NOT reject
all mail destined for invalid
On 12/11/2008, Jakub Nadolny ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Yes, it uses sendmail command. It is common vacation.pl by Mischa Peters, but
quite old version, I can not find newer one. What would be the best solution
for
postfix auto-responder which could be easily integrated with postfix admin and
On 12/9/2008 11:38 AM, Fat Bear Mail Services wrote:
With:
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
and:
/etc/postfix/virtual:
...
domainA.com domainA.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailboxForUser1-A
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailboxForUser2-A
On 12/9/2008, Steve Amerige ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
gives an undesired 250 status for the unknown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is
there a way to configure Postfix, leaving the file /etc/postfix virtual
unchanged, so that the response to an unknown user via a whole-domain
mapping results in a 550
On 12/4/2008, M. Fioretti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It would be a very useful service to the community if you or any other
of the real gurus could compile a short list, say one or two pages at
postfix.org, of which howtos are wrong, where and above all why. It
may save further question and
On 12/4/2008 8:42 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
That said, I am sure that the website maintainer would be happy to post
such a list if you were to provide it...
Actually, that should have read '...would be happy to *consider* posting
such a list...'
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 12/4/2008, Gabriel Hahmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My configuration is listed below
Output of postconf -n is preferred...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 12/1/2008 12:40 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
There is nothing wrong with lost connections after QUIT. Newer versions
of Postfix only log lost connection in the SMTP server during data
transfer or when sending the . response. The client is free to
disconnect without QUIT at all other SMTP
On 11/14/2008, Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Postfix as released by me does not chroot anything. Some
Linux distributors insist on setting up things this way,
which only can give Postfix a bad reputation.
Perhaps if enough people complain it will be changed.
I'd be very
On 11/13/2008, Nick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Basically, the server after recieving the mail, does a few checks
then delivers it to the final destination just fine, but for a few
users (for a reason I'm not able to understand) it sends a delivery
report after successful deliveries (obviously
On 11/13/2008, Jacky Chan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I would like to set a specific tranport for mail sending to yahoo, which
slow it down to avoid getting greylisted. I set a dedicated transport in
master.cf like
slow unix - - n - 1 smtp
And set the
On 11/13/2008, D G Teed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'll report the smtpd related details here so those who
want to know how it is set up can see.
postconf -n output is preferred... all of it...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 11/11/2008 11:07 AM, Jaap Westerbeek wrote:
Digging into the logfiles, I could not find the spammer (64.129.70.219) had
used SASL
So if he didn't get in through sasl_auth, obviously he must have gotten
in through a hole in your
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access_recipient,
On 11/11/2008 4:35 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Linux Addict wrote:
While I read through this, I understand that to use domain keys, the
client has to send mails through submission port 587. Does that sound
right? Just to use domainkeys, all clients to has to send mails to
port 587
On 11/11/2008 4:49 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Common administrative practices include submission on 587 for
trusted clients only and should not be permitted on the internet.
This port should be firewalled outside of your network.
Excuse me?!?!? Thats ridiculous... in fact, just the OPPOSITE
On 11/4/2008, Lluis Ribes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If I want to avoid that the spammer wouldn't receive a response like this:
but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting
the other email provider for further information about the cause of
this error. The error that
On 10/31/2008, Asai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_sasl_authenticated, permit_mynetworks,
reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_unknown_sender_domain, permit
I do believe this makes you an open relay...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 10/31/2008 12:37 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 10/31/2008, Asai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_sasl_authenticated, permit_mynetworks,
reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_unknown_sender_domain, permit
I do believe this makes you an open relay...
Oh...
add
On 10/29/2008, Joe Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
All our production boxes are 100% reiserfs, and have been for some
years, based on performance testing. They have been rock solid, and most
of them have 800 day uptimes at this point. I did some performance
comparisons a few months ago and
On 10/20/2008, Joey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Running spamassasin on every domain we support will kill the server
CPU wise and again as in my messages before it's about reducing
overhead. I am abusing some RBL's in some cases so I need to reduce
connections.
I highly recommend checking out
Wrong list... this has absolutely zero to do with postfix.
On 10/16/2008 4:38 AM, Gejo Paul wrote:
Dear All,
I am using postfix + perdition + courier + ldap+ maildir (mail quota)
on my mail servers.most of my clients are using squirrelmail for
checking mails.
All the functions are
On 10/13/2008 5:33 PM, Joey wrote:
I prefer the animating contest of freedom (and that includes learning
how to deal with spam), rather than give over absolute despotic control
of the internet to any government agency, which is what you are in
essence 'pipe-dreaming' about.
Agreed, how would
On 10/13/2008, Joey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Somewhere government ( which I dont want them to control, but is the
only one that can step in ) has to step in and setup hard and fast
laws and rules based on a committee of knowledgable people ( Wietse
etc ) to create a system which requires
On 10/10/2008 8:21 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Is there a simple way to test the returned value of a mysql based
virtual mailbox map from the command line using the postconf command or
something similar?
man postmap (option -q)
I'm blind... thanks Ralf...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Hi,
Currently my virtual_mailbox_maps are being accessed by:
virtual_mailbox_domains = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_vmd.cf
virtual_mailbox_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_vmm.cf
It has been said here many times that it is better to use proxy:mysql:
instead, but I'm confused about implementation...
On 10/10/2008, Stephen Liu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
# postmap -q [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/etc/postfix/mysql-virtual_mailbox_limit_maps.cf
postmap: fatal: open database
/etc/postfix/mysql-virtual_mailbox_limit_maps.cf.db: No such file or
directory
Fix this...
If
On 10/10/2008, Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is it simply a matter of adding the proxy: prefix to the map
location?
Yes. I thought that the examples are sufficient. But if you are more
comfortable with more formal Backus-Naur syntax then I suppose could
provide that too.
No,
Hello,
Googling didn't reveal the answer (I probably didn't hit the right terms)...
Is there a simple way to test the returned value of a mysql based
virtual mailbox map from the command line using the postconf command or
something similar?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 10/7/2008, Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I like the setup that allows the client to use pop details to
authenticate - I even managed to get that working ;)
If you're talking about pop-b4-smtp, then you should know that it is
insecure and likely to cause you trouble.
Just go with
On 10/8/2008, Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I mean where the person in the mail client checks my server requires
authentication and then selects use same credentials as pop server
(thereby using username and password)
Ok then... just making sure... :)
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 10/7/2008 9:26 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Does the default:
delay_warning_time = 0h
really mean that the sender would get the warning immediately if the
message wasn't able to be delivered immediately?
Please read the docs carefully:
To enable this feature, specify a non-zero time
On 10/6/2008 7:18 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Can I set up DNS (and MX records) for several different domains to
point to the same postfix instance/host/IP address and reference
that same postfix instance/host/IP by different DNS host names
(smtp.example1.com, smtp.example2.com, etc), and have
Hi,
What is probably a *very* obvious question...
Does the default:
delay_warning_time = 0h
really mean that the sender would get the warning immediately if the
message wasn't able to be delivered immediately?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 10/7/2008 3:09 PM, mouss wrote:
but, example.com (the domain, not the hostname) is also listed in
virtual_mailbox_domains via the mysql lookup...
Is this OK/normal? I'm thinking yes, because:
yes, it's ok.
Ok, good... :)
Note that both smtp.example.com and example.com are FQDN.
Right,
On 10/7/2008, Victor Duchovni ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This is false. DNS allows SOA, NS and A (or ) records to exist at
the same level (for the same domain name). So a delegated domain name
(zone cut) can also be a host. What is not legal is CNAME records in
combination with NS or SOA,
On 10/6/2008 2:29 PM, mouss wrote:
Currently, I simply have our one domain referenced in mydomain, and
have the hostname set accordingly (see postconf -n below), and am
not using virtual_mailbox_domains.
currently, you have domains in mydestination even if you didn't specify
that. you can
On 10/6/2008, Brian Evans - Postfix List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm going to be writing up instructions for users who will be using
these new domains how to set up their mail clients (Thunderbird mainly,
but I also include instructions for the Microsoft clients)... so I
wanted to confirm
On 10/6/2008, Jorey Bump ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If the name resolves, they'll connect to your server. However, if you're
going to offer STARTTLS, you have a problem. How are you going to
support all of these different domains in a single certificate?
Currently, you can't, so you'll need to
On 10/1/2008, Ujjval K ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The geniuses at Comcast (my ISP; no, I don't have any choice) have
suddenly decided that I am a source of spam and hence require me to
send e-mail to port 587 instead of port 25.
Or maybe you should consider whether you ARE a source of spam.
On 9/26/2008, Henrik K ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ok that's true. But it still doesn't make it right to have a non-working
envelope sender.
What is 'right' and what is reality are often very different things.
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 9/26/2008, Michael Monnerie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or 5000 messages
that your disk is almost
On 9/26/2008 7:56 AM, PauAmma wrote:
Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or 5000 messages
that your disk is almost full.
If 5000 messages
On 9/22/2008, Victor Duchovni ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
By default Postfix truncates virtual(5) expansion at 1000 recipients.
For lists this large you MUST not use virtual(5), rather use a :include:
valued local alias, AND set an owner-list alias to make sure that
bounces are NOT send to the
On 9/18/2008, Marcel Grandemange ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I have pop-before-smtp running for relaying from outside.
This is extremely unwise.
Use smtp auth instead. popb4smtp is very insecure, and will most likely
result in your server becoming compromised - its not a matter of if, but
when.
On 9/9/2008, Adam Tauno Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Yes, Thunderbird works with roaming profiles; albeit rather badly.
Thunderbird has no auto-configuration mechanism so every user's
account(s) need to be setup manually and it is prone to making HUGE
cache files if not setup
On 9/5/2008 12:46 PM, Joakim Ohlsson wrote:
This is first time I use this mailing-list, so please let me know if I do
anything wrong.
My problem is that I want to send bounced messages to an different mail
address than the mail-address in the MAIL FROM: field.
This is by definition (i.e.
On 9/1/2008 12:15 PM, Erik Paulsen Skaalerud wrote:
I have a postfix-pop3/imap4 server at our office who gets incoming
smtp mail from either 2 fixed IP adresses (antispam-company), from my
local network or from clients authenticated via SASL.
Is it possible to restrict smtp access so that
On 8/25/2008, Aaron D. Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
html_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.1.4-documentation/html
readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.0.16/README_FILES
sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.0.16/samples
So what version is this?
2.0.16? 2.1.4? Something
On 8/25/2008 11:48 AM, Aaron Bennett wrote:
So what version is this?
2.0.16? 2.1.4? Something else?
If either of those, you really should upgrade...
no it's 2.3.2, those config statements are just cruft from a few upgrades.
Still old and worth upgrading...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 8/20/2008, John Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
bmmail.cwf.org returns a valid result from a dns check. What am I
missing here?
This: helo=doorway3
helo hostnames should be FQDN's...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 8/14/2008 11:54 AM, John Heim wrote:
Get it? Somebody tries to spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] and user12 has his
mail forwarded to his gmail account. Gmail detects the spam, rejects the
message and my mta then generates a bounce back to the original forged
from address.
I don't see anything in
On 8/11/2008, Charles Marcus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But no need to redirect it, just block it...
That should have read 'reject', not block...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Hi,
I know this is simple, but I never had to do it, so wanna check myself...
For outbound mail, do transport entries supersede the relayhost
parameter in main.cf?
The reason I ask is, currently, I relay all outbound mail through our
outsourced anti-spam service (smtp.example1.com).
We
On 8/8/2008, Noel Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It looks as if you already consulted the documentation and just want
to confirm your interpretation of it. That's good, but say so next
time or you'll just be pointed back to the docs.
Heh... yeah, should have said so... but thanks for
On 8/4/2008 9:10 PM, fajar wrote:
Why are you using sender verification? You should NOT use SAV for all
messages, only for messages destined to domains that you control or have
already gotten permission to do SAV for, or you WILL evenutally get
blacklisted.
Please post postconf -n output...
On 8/4/2008, fajar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.4.7 - Delivery expired (message too old) [Default] 451-'Sender verify
failed'
Why are you using sender verification? You should NOT use SAV for all
Let me give this one a try... I *think* i see the problem...
On 8/4/2008, Nicolas KOWALSKI ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Aug 4 14:17:18 petole postfix/smtpd[23545]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from 225.96.68-86.rev.gaoland.net[86.68.96.225]: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host [86.68.96.225]
On 8/4/2008 11:00 AM, oxy wrote:
i am using postfixadmin with virtual vacation script and i have a
little problem here.. after set up virtual vacation as postfixadmin
decribes i have actually two kind of problems, first:
when i set virtual vacation the mailbox sends back one 'i am on
vacation'
501 - 600 of 601 matches
Mail list logo
