(I patched the domain to example.org for this posting)
2009/5/27 Carlos Williams :
> So today I had another user ask me why he is getting an email stating
> the following:
>
> *
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Content-f
2009/5/23 John Peach :
> Looks worse than that:
>
> host -t mx server.us
> server.us mail is handled by 10 cm1.dnsmadeeasy.com.
>
> So they're not the primary MX and they're bouncing it.
I'm happy to be wrong, but I suspect it's more likely that "server.us"
was intended by the OP to obscur
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:23:33 +0200
mouss wrote:
> Carlos Williams a __crit :
> > [snip]
> > Content-filter at server.us wrote:
> >
> > A message from to: -> jthras...@server.us
> > was considered unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Our internal reference
> > code for your message is 16433-01/qNJ
Carlos Williams a écrit :
> [snip]
> Content-filter at server.us wrote:
>
> A message from to: -> jthras...@server.us
> was considered unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Our internal reference
> code for your message is 16433-01/qNJBp5TNkzDa The message carried
> your return address, so it was ei
2009/5/23 Carlos Williams :
> Thanks for all the info and I guess I am still worried because the
> user who the logs indicate is sending this message is 100% not sending
> this. She has been on vacation for the past 2 weeks as no webmail
> activity either. I used "postcat -q" to check the message I
Carlos Williams:
> > 206.212.244.102 does not accept SMTP connections. Either the host
> > is firewalled, or the host is down, or it is not reachable for
> > other reasons.
> >
> > % telnet 206.212.244.102 smtp
> > Trying 206.212.244.102...
> > telnet: connect to address 206.212.244.102: Operation
Thanks for all the info and I guess I am still worried because the
user who the logs indicate is sending this message is 100% not sending
this. She has been on vacation for the past 2 weeks as no webmail
activity either. I used "postcat -q" to check the message ID and the
output is listed below:
O
Carlos Williams a écrit :
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>> No need to be alarmist; search the logs for further enlightenment.
>
> I checked the logs and found the following when I search for the message ID:
>
> May 21 16:48:04 mail postfix/smtpd[22513]: 502E97782FC:
> cl
Carlos Williams:
> status=deferred (connect to
> returnmail35.gowenandco.com[206.212.244.102]: Connection timed out)
206.212.244.102 does not accept SMTP connections. Either the host
is firewalled, or the host is down, or it is not reachable for
other reasons.
% telnet 206.212.244.102 smtp
Trying
On Friday 22 May 2009 02:33:48 Carlos Williams wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > No need to be alarmist; search the logs for further enlightenment.
>
> I checked the logs and found the following when I search for the message
> ID:
>
> May 21 16:48:04 mail postfix/sm
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Carlos Williams wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > No need to be alarmist; search the logs for further enlightenment.
>
> I checked the logs and found the following when I search for the message ID:
s/message/queue/ :-)
> May 21 16:48:04 mail
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> No need to be alarmist; search the logs for further enlightenment.
I checked the logs and found the following when I search for the message ID:
May 21 16:48:04 mail postfix/smtpd[22513]: 502E97782FC:
client=localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1]
M
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Carlos Williams wrote:
> Can someone please help me understand why I am seeing this entry over
> and over in my Postfix queue? Is this dangerous or does this mean I
> have been compromised?
No need to be alarmist; search the logs for further enlightenment.
> I am seeing this
Can someone please help me understand why I am seeing this entry over
and over in my Postfix queue? Is this dangerous or does this mean I
have been compromised?
I am seeing this over and over in my queue even after I remove it with
the "postsuper -d" command:
502E97782FC 4527 Thu May 21 16:48
14 matches
Mail list logo