On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:41:35 +0100
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net articulated:
Le 05/02/2011 00:34, Joe a écrit :
On 02/04/2011 03:13 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
I always try to work with the package management system to keep
things sane and manageable if possible.
On 02/04/2011 05:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Steve Jenkins put forth on 2/3/2011 11:18 AM:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K ju...@klunky.co.uk wrote:
Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
residential ADSL from being an Email server, and force them to use
Am 04.02.2011 11:20, schrieb J4K:
I agree. I have plenty of colleagues who run their own mail servers from
residential connections and they know how to set-up their machines.
Maybe, but if they are running a mailserver form dial-up ranges
mail seems not to be important for them because
On 02/04/2011 11:45 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
not see any. Is there a string I could search for,
Try:
~$ egrep
On 02/04/2011 11:53 AM, J4K wrote:
On 02/04/2011 11:45 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
not see any. Is there a string I
Reindl Harald put forth on 2/4/2011 4:35 AM:
Am 04.02.2011 11:20, schrieb J4K:
I agree. I have plenty of colleagues who run their own mail servers from
residential connections and they know how to set-up their machines.
Maybe, but if they are running a mailserver form dial-up ranges
Zitat von Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
Am 04.02.2011 11:20, schrieb J4K:
I agree. I have plenty of colleagues who run their own mail servers from
residential connections and they know how to set-up their machines.
Maybe, but if they are running a mailserver form dial-up ranges
On 02/04/2011 11:45 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
not see any. Is there a string I could search for,
Try:
~$ egrep
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:48:08 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com articulated:
Well, I think there's a bit more to it than that. Some distros have
various policies in place that hinder rapid inclusion. That said, if
Sahil were associated with the Debian project instead of or in
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:18 AM, J4K ju...@klunky.co.uk wrote:
I think there is a typo in the file:
/^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\.nl$/
PREPEND X-GenericStaticHELO: (versatel.ml)
should read /ml/nl/
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
CentOS 5.5, their latest, ships with Postfix 2.3.3, which hasn't been
supported by Wietse for quite some time. A new install of CentOS 5.5
gives you an officially unsupported Postfix, thought I'm sure CentOS
will
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:56:51AM +0100, J4K wrote:
Thank-you for the example. Can the /etc/postfix/whitelist be an
empty file?
Answering my own question:-
# ls -l /etc/postfix/whitelist
-rw-r- 1 root root 0 Feb 4 11:53 /etc/postfix/whitelist
Feb 4 11:53:17 logout
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 01:27:35PM -0600, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:56:51AM +0100, J4K wrote:
Thank-you for the example. Can the /etc/postfix/whitelist be an
empty file?
Answering my own question:-
# ls -l /etc/postfix/whitelist
-rw-r- 1 root root 0 Feb 4
On 02/04/2011 10:42 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Still, I am (well, WAS) disappointed that Postfix 2.3.3 is what
installs on CentOS 5.5 by default. But Postfix 2.8 wasn't that hard to
compile. :)
I always try to work with the package management system to keep things
sane and manageable if
[ Reply-To: set to self as this is no longer on topic for the list ]
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:20:45AM +0100, J4K wrote:
On 02/04/2011 05:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Steve Jenkins put forth on 2/3/2011 11:18 AM:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K ju...@klunky.co.uk wrote:
Its a good
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 7:18 AM:
I think there is a typo in the file:
/^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\.nl$/
PREPEND X-GenericStaticHELO: (versatel.ml)
should read /ml/nl/
/^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\.nl$/
Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
On 02/04/2011 10:42 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Still, I am (well, WAS) disappointed that Postfix 2.3.3 is what
installs on CentOS 5.5 by default. But Postfix 2.8 wasn't that hard to
compile. :)
I always try to work with the package management system to
Am 05.02.2011 00:13, schrieb mouss:
Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
On 02/04/2011 10:42 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Still, I am (well, WAS) disappointed that Postfix 2.3.3 is what
installs on CentOS 5.5 by default. But Postfix 2.8 wasn't that hard to
compile. :)
I always try to work with
On 02/04/2011 03:13 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
I always try to work with the package management system to keep things
sane and manageable if possible. postfix-2.7 and 2.8 rpms and srpms are
available for centos from several sources. It's pretty easy to replace
the
Le 05/02/2011 00:34, Joe a écrit :
On 02/04/2011 03:13 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
I always try to work with the package management system to keep things
sane and manageable if possible. postfix-2.7 and 2.8 rpms and srpms are
available for centos from several sources.
On 02/02/2011 11:54 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
In the mean time, maybe give this a go. 1600+ expressions matching rDNS
patterns of many millions of broadband IPs worldwide that shouldn't be
sending
direct SMTP.
On 2/3/2011 4:44 AM, J4K wrote:
[snip]
I can attest to the awesomeness of Stan's pcre file. I run it on all 5
of our Postfix servers, and it catches a LOT of stuff. From my logs,
what it seems to do best is block zombie mailers on dynamic IPs.
And I updated to your latest version today, Stan.
On 02/03/2011 10:56 AM, Daniel Bromberg wrote:
On 2/3/2011 4:44 AM, J4K wrote:
[snip]
I can attest to the awesomeness of Stan's pcre file. I run it on all 5
of our Postfix servers, and it catches a LOT of stuff. From my logs,
what it seems to do best is block zombie mailers on dynamic IPs.
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:44:46 -0600
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com articulated:
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/2/2011 2:56 PM:
Debian won't have 2.8 in stable until at least 2013, although you
may be able to get it as a backport later this year:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:44:13 +0100
J4K ju...@klunky.co.uk wrote:
On 02/02/2011 11:54 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
In the mean time, maybe give this a go. 1600+ expressions matching rDNS
patterns of many millions of
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K ju...@klunky.co.uk wrote:
Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
residential ADSL from being an Email server, and force them to use their
ISPs relay. Else they might have to upgrade to a business package or spend
more money
On 2/3/11 1:44 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/2/2011 2:56 PM:
Debian won't have 2.8 in stable until at least 2013, although you may be able to
get it as a backport later this year:
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=postfix
They lag behind something awful.
J4K put forth on 2/3/2011 3:44 AM:
Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
residential ADSL from being an Email server,
As the directions in the file itself state, fix situations like this with a
simple whitelist. Given the number of hobbyist servers your MX
J4K put forth on 2/3/2011 4:09 AM:
True. Some of the matches don't reject, but prepend this header:
X-GenericStaticHELO
What is this header used for?
This exists due to the grey area between residential and business
classification. Some providers offer static IP service to small businesses
Jerry put forth on 2/3/2011 5:19 AM:
FreeBSD had the 2.8 release in its ports system a few days after it was
officially released. The 2.9(beta) release will be released into the
ports system shortly. The original 2.8(beta) was available almost
from its inception. The speed with which a
Steve Jenkins put forth on 2/3/2011 11:18 AM:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K ju...@klunky.co.uk wrote:
Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
residential ADSL from being an Email server, and force them to use their
ISPs relay. Else they might have to
Hi there,
Quick question about this error I saw in the logs just now.There
is a note about it on Ralf's page [
http://www.arschkrebs.de/postfix/postfix_unknown.shtml ], but I am
trying to work out if its a problem or not caused by my postfix
implementation. The server really has no
J4K:
Feb 2 17:09:28 logout postfix/smtpd[1599]: connect from unknown[unknown]
Feb 2 17:09:28 logout postfix/smtpd[1599]: lost connection after
CONNECT from unknown[unknown]
The client disconnected before Postfix could ask the KERNEL for
the client IP address. Either your server is too slow
On 02/02/2011 05:23 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
J4K:
Feb 2 17:09:28 logout postfix/smtpd[1599]: connect from unknown[unknown]
Feb 2 17:09:28 logout postfix/smtpd[1599]: lost connection after
CONNECT from unknown[unknown]
The client disconnected before Postfix could ask the KERNEL for
the
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = sleep 3,
permit_mynetworks,permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination,
On 02/02/2011 06:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = sleep 3,
On 2/2/11 7:23 PM, JKL wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = sleep 3,
JKL put forth on 2/2/2011 12:23 PM:
On 02/02/2011 06:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = sleep
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
In the mean time, maybe give this a go. 1600+ expressions matching rDNS
patterns of many millions of broadband IPs worldwide that shouldn't be sending
direct SMTP. Catches quite a bit that PBL/CBL/SORBS-DYNA/etc don't
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/2/2011 2:56 PM:
Debian won't have 2.8 in stable until at least 2013, although you may be able
to
get it as a backport later this year:
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=postfix
They lag behind something awful.
You're smoke'n crack. ;) 2.7.1 was
40 matches
Mail list logo
