On 8/5/2012 10:53 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 07:48:56AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 8/4/2012 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
I'm not sure why you did this. Some MTAs, notably qmail, are
likely to assault you with many
On 8/4/2012 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
I'm not sure why you did this. Some MTAs, notably qmail, are likely
to assault you with many simultaneous connections. This non-default
setting might cause difficulty at times in receiving legitimate
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:41:25PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
I'm not addressing the subject of the post, but just picking
over the configuration snippet.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:48:45PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
[root@mta01
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 07:48:56AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 8/4/2012 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
I'm not sure why you did this. Some MTAs, notably qmail, are
likely to assault you with many simultaneous connections. This
I'm not addressing the subject of the post, but just picking over the
configuration snippet.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:48:45PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
[root@mta01 /usr/local/etc/postfix]# postconf -n|grep postscreen
[snip]
postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
I'm not sure why
On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
I'm not addressing the subject of the post, but just picking over the
configuration snippet.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:48:45PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
[root@mta01 /usr/local/etc/postfix]# postconf -n|grep postscreen
[snip]
Am 04.08.2012 23:41, schrieb Chad M Stewart:
postscreen_greet_banner = Welcome to our mail server
This is non-compliant and a bad idea.
That is prepended to the banner, the banner becomes a multi-line response,
with the last line being the fqdn of the host.
this is a bad idea, this was
Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
PASS NEW means there was no cache entry. Postfix does not
keep expired entries for eternity.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
PASS NEW means there was no cache entry.
On 8/2/2012 6:26 AM, Chad M Stewart wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires
Chad M Stewart:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
PASS NEW means
Wietse Venema:
Chad M Stewart:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires
On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:03 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:26 AM, Chad M Stewart wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen and noticed
that a recently connected IP had was not marked as PASS OLD but rather PASS
NEW. See log entires below
Aug 1 16:20:54 mta01 postfix/postscreen[41196]: CONNECT from
[69.147.83.53]:56643 to [192.168.7.30]:25
Aug
14 matches
Mail list logo
