On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 01:19:12 +0200
Morten P.D. Stevens mstev...@imt-systems.com wrote:
Hi all,
a small question regard to the postfix message id process.
Every message has a unique ID provided by the postfix messaging process.
Some messages have a 11 characters message id and other a 12
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:46:53 +0700
Makara chanmak...@gmail.com wrote:
Puthick, no authentication require for sending mail out because of
users knowledge limitation. We would like to solve the problem without
implement smtp authentication.
use one of the pop-before-smtp packages. It's
On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:32:27 +0300
Appliantologist octo...@gmail.com wrote:
I figured it's be pretty easy, say have some file like used in the
various popauth schemes. If the IP address of the connection in not in
the list, NO relay. It wasn't. Strict 822RFC is set and it doesn't
stop the
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:38:06 -0600
The Doctor doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca wrote:
Out: 220 doctor.nl2k.ab.ca ESMTP Postfix (2.8-20100323)
In: mail-iw0-f172.google.com
Out: 402 4.5.2 Error: command not recognized
is not a valid SMTP/ESMTP command.
Are you using a Pix?
Out: 451
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:27:57 +1000 (EST)
Voytek Eymont li...@sbt.net.au wrote:
I just noticed this in the logs, which might be from a valid sender to a
valid user on this server:
Apr 5 11:03:31 postfix/smtpd[31021]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au[203.63.86.26]: 554
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:22:44 -0500
Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
No. The log entry clearly shows that
fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au is the sender and local postfix
is the receiver. The local postfix rejects the delivery attempt.
This is almost certainly a spoofed freemail rule
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:13:27 -0700
Terry Barnum te...@dop.com wrote:
Other ideas why those clients didn't get rejected before DATA?
ESMTP Pipelining?
They could very well be rejected before DATA, except, well, with pipelining
they may have already started sending the message.
(There are quite
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:13:05 -0600
Josh Cason joc...@mychoice.cc wrote:
So when I type grep the original message. In this case as
listed above. It list the server ip number as comming in with some
outside e-mail address we don't have.
If it's coming from the server IP or localhost, you've
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:27:29 -0400 (EDT)
Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Just to clarify, this DNS server is likely to create the same
problem with other sites that run a version of the qmail MTA.
That sounds like a feature to me.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:08:03 +1100
Adrian Overbury adr...@inomial.com wrote:
I think that there's an important step here that I always use when I'm
doing a mail migration. It could really go anywhere above the 'wait for
a Friday night' step, really. Reduce the TTL on the domain to
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:47:09 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.html
*Definition: non-commercial use is use for any purpose other than as part
or all of a product or service that is resold, or for use of which a fee is
charged.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:41:13 -0600
/dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
Whilst the above sounds a bit like a straw-man argument condemning
other DNSBLs (I'll get to that in a bit), it does bring up a very
important point, which, given the OP's post in the other thread,
needs to be emphasized.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +0800
Jon L Miller jlmil...@mmtnetworks.com.au wrote:
Is there a preferred list of rbl sites one can use in postfix. I keep
getting the following on the following:
Since others answered your error message, I'll answer the first question:
smtpd_restriction_classes
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:19:31 +0100
Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
Why this extra complexity?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ..
reject_rbl_client b.barracudacentral.org
Because in my case it's actually a bit different: users can optin/out
of filter sets.
(using
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:27:05 -0300
Damian Rivas dam...@cht.com.ar wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have a Postfix box basically configured to send mail from my organization
to the Internet. Today I received a warning message telling me that the mail
queue was full.
It seems that some Spammer
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:42:03 +0200
Thomas Gelf tho...@gelf.net wrote:
e) we are a really small ISP, but the largest one in our region. Two
years ago we decided to be less permissive - and we had to dedicate
ressources to teach people what they are doing wrong. The result
has been, that
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:25:40 +1000
Barney Desmond barneydesm...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't done this myself, but I hear policy servers are quite
popular for this sort of thing (the usual question is how to setup
sending quotas for users, so this would be a slight modification).
Yes,
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:40:58 -0600
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
This is known as a Prove You Love Me scheme and is, essentially,
offloading your spam problems onto everyone else who sends you mail.
You will find a LOT of people are pissed off by these PYLM emails,
and will not reply.
On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:12:28 -0600
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
On 28 May 2009, at 03:56, Ralf Hildebrandt
ralf.hildebra...@charite.de wrote:
Turns out Wietse was wrong:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
Would it be approriate to ask what the issues are with
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:54:27 -0400 (EDT)
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Um, that should be the other way around:
Though that will change 'every' sender to be that sender which may not
be correct (virtual hosts, webmail, etc).
http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.mail.php and see
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:44:21 +1100
Ross Tsolakidis ross.tsolaki...@day3.com.au wrote:
Just change the users password and slap them for clicking on the link.
Easy.
Easy but tedious.
I had to resort to installing postfix-policyd to rate limit them.
(Make sure you have Squirrel use auth so
21 matches
Mail list logo
