Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: spf configuration woes)
Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a as a critical
symbol is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that
significant!
The current RFC defining email message format is RFC5322
Zitat von David Southwell ad...@vizion2000.net:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 06:42:12 Simon Brereton wrote:
On 5 November 2011 08:21, David Southwell ad...@vizion2000.net wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
Did you read the original posting
On Sunday 06 November 2011 01:46:35 lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von David Southwell ad...@vizion2000.net:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 06:42:12 Simon Brereton wrote:
On 5 November 2011 08:21, David Southwell ad...@vizion2000.net wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse
Am 06.11.2011 10:34, schrieb David Southwell:
That is plain B**t. I am making a constructive contribution which, if
some
thought and consideration were given to it, might substantially improve
Postfix and make it much more administrator friendly.
THIS is plain bullshit
you are
On Sunday 06 November 2011 02:43:31 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2011 10:34, schrieb David Southwell:
That is plain B**t. I am making a constructive contribution which, if
some thought and consideration were given to it, might substantially
improve Postfix and make it much more
would you please be so gently only reply to the list and not
additionally to the post you are answering? your arguments
are not smart enough that there is a need get them all twice
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sunday 06 November 2011 02:54:42 Reindl Harald wrote:
would you please be so gently only reply to the list and not
additionally to the post you are answering? your arguments
are not smart enough that there is a need get them all twice
Quite happy to do that. Mind you it may be possible to
Am 06.11.2011 11:24, schrieb David Southwell:
Quite happy to do that. Mind you it may be possible to ask in a way that does
not demonstrate a determination, fequently expressed on this list, to hammer
into the ground anyone who has the audacity to voice an opinion which does
not
accord
On Sunday 06 November 2011 03:33:02 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2011 11:24, schrieb David Southwell:
Quite happy to do that. Mind you it may be possible to ask in a way that
does not demonstrate a determination, fequently expressed on this list,
to hammer into the ground anyone who has
Am 06.11.2011 11:40, schrieb David Southwell:
On Sunday 06 November 2011 03:33:02 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2011 11:24, schrieb David Southwell:
Quite happy to do that. Mind you it may be possible to ask in a way that
does not demonstrate a determination, fequently expressed on this
On Sunday 06 November 2011 03:55:45 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2011 11:40, schrieb David Southwell:
On Sunday 06 November 2011 03:33:02 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2011 11:24, schrieb David Southwell:
Quite happy to do that. Mind you it may be possible to ask in a way
that does not
, November 05, 2011 9:41 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc: /dev/rob0
Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: spf configuration woes)
Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a as a critical
symbol is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that
significant
On Friday 04 November 2011 14:07:36 Wietse Venema wrote:
Benny Pedersen:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:45:47 -0700, David Southwell wrote:
policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
user=nobody argv=/usr/local/sbin/postfix-policyd-spf-perl
nobody have no
On 2011-11-05 11:27, David Southwell wrote:
Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me
identify the
error?
[...]
policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
Is there whitespace at the beginning of this line? You have to remove it.
man 5 master.cf
On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:13:17 Kamil Raczyński wrote:
On 2011-11-05 11:27, David Southwell wrote:
Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me
identify the
error?
[...]
policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
Is there
David Southwell:
Yes, because of a master.cf configuration error.
Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me identify the
Have you run lsof or netstat already, to find out if
postfix is listening on the policyd-spf socket?
Do you prefer to debate the number of legs on a
On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:57:26 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
Yes, because of a master.cf configuration error.
Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me identify
the
Have you run lsof or netstat already, to find out if
postfix is listening on the
David Southwell:
Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted the
primary cause. It was he who spotted the extrabefore policyd-spf in
master.cf which was in the part of the post you cut out.
So you were right it was an error in the master.cf but noone else
On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:33:27 David Southwell wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 04:13:17 Kamil Raczyński wrote:
On 2011-11-05 11:27, David Southwell wrote:
Lets assume that is the case. If so can anyone please help me
identify the
error?
[...]
policyd-spf
On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted
the primary cause. It was he who spotted the extrabefore
policyd-spf in master.cf which was in the part of the post you cut out.
So you
On 5 November 2011 08:21, David Southwell ad...@vizion2000.net wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted
the primary cause. It was he who spotted the extra before
policyd-spf
On Saturday 05 November 2011 06:42:12 Simon Brereton wrote:
On 5 November 2011 08:21, David Southwell ad...@vizion2000.net wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 05:13:22 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
Did you read the original posting and the reply from Kamil. He spotted
the
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 07:03:18 -0700
David Southwell articulated:
In this case Kemil spotted the error. That helped me spot other
errors. Kemil was constructive IMHPO Wietse was plain rude.
In that case, cross Wietse off your Christmas card list and add Kemil.
The users of this list are offering
I have cut all the irrelevant and whiny crap from the quotes, and I
ask that others please not continue that off-topic and useless
discussion. One part of this, q.v., deserves to be addressed.
On Saturday 05 November 2011 09:03:18 David Southwell wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2011 06:42:12
On Saturday 05 November 2011 07:50:58 /dev/rob0 wrote:
I have cut all the irrelevant and whiny crap from the quotes, and I
ask that others please not continue that off-topic and useless
discussion. One part of this, q.v., deserves to be addressed.
On Saturday 05 November 2011 09:03:18 David
Just to add weight to my last posting - the use of a as a critical symbol
is really quite idiotic. What cannot be seen should never be that significant!
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of David Southwell
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:41 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Cc: /dev/rob0
Subject: Re: executive parser (was: Re: spf configuration woes
System freebsd 8
Cannot get spf working with the server.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Here is the information:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
# Applied #1 postfix refereshed ok
spf-policy unix - n n - 0 spawn
user=nobody
David Southwell:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
spf-policy unix - n n - 0 spawn
This says: spf-policy
If the following lines appear in main.cf
check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf
policyd-spf_time_limit = 3600
This says: policyd-spf
On Friday 04 November 2011 07:23:33 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
spf-policy unix - n n - 0 spawn
This says: spf-policy
If the following lines appear in main.cf
check_policy_service
On Friday 04 November 2011 07:23:33 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
spf-policy unix - n n - 0 spawn
This says: spf-policy
If the following lines appear in main.cf
check_policy_service
David Southwell:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On Friday 04 November 2011 07:23:33 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
spf-policy unix - n n - 0 spawn
This says: spf-policy
If the
On Friday 04 November 2011 08:01:19 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On Friday 04 November 2011 07:23:33 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
spf-policy unix - n n -
On Friday 04 November 2011 08:01:19 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On Friday 04 November 2011 07:23:33 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
spf-policy unix - n n -
David Southwell wrote:
But still got the following errors when the lines in main.cf were unchecked:
[snip]
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1 postfix/smtpd[26676]: warning: connect to
private/policyd-spf: Connection refused
You need to find out why your policy server isn't responding to Postfix.
Since
On Friday 04 November 2011 08:01:19 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On Friday 04 November 2011 07:23:33 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
The following lines appear in master.cf:
spf-policy unix - n n -
On Friday 04 November 2011 09:24:40 Kris Deugau wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
But still got the following errors when the lines in main.cf were
unchecked:
[snip]
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1 postfix/smtpd[26676]: warning: connect to
private/policyd-spf: Connection refused
You need to find
David Southwell:
On Friday 04 November 2011 09:24:40 Kris Deugau wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
But still got the following errors when the lines in main.cf were
unchecked:
[snip]
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1 postfix/smtpd[26676]: warning: connect to
private/policyd-spf: Connection
On Friday 04 November 2011 10:24:54 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
On Friday 04 November 2011 09:24:40 Kris Deugau wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
But still got the following errors when the lines in main.cf were
unchecked:
[snip]
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1
On Friday 04 November 2011 10:24:54 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
On Friday 04 November 2011 09:24:40 Kris Deugau wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
But still got the following errors when the lines in main.cf were
unchecked:
[snip]
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1
On Friday 04 November 2011 10:24:54 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
On Friday 04 November 2011 09:24:40 Kris Deugau wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
But still got the following errors when the lines in main.cf were
unchecked:
[snip]
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:57 PM, David Southwell ad...@vizion2000.netwrote:
On Friday 04 November 2011 10:24:54 Wietse Venema wrote:
David Southwell:
On Friday 04 November 2011 09:24:40 Kris Deugau wrote:
David Southwell wrote:
But still got the following errors when the lines in
David Southwell:
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1 postfix/smtpd[26676]: warning: connect to
private/policyd-spf: Connection refused
You can use lsof or netstat to find out what is listening.
Have you tried that already?
On FreeBSD (which I recall is the platform) the error Connection
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:45:47 -0700, David Southwell wrote:
policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
user=nobody argv=/usr/local/sbin/postfix-policyd-spf-perl
nobody have no write permissions in postfix private socket dir
Nov 4 07:37:50 dns1
Benny Pedersen:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:45:47 -0700, David Southwell wrote:
policyd-spf unix - n n - 0 spawn
user=nobody argv=/usr/local/sbin/postfix-policyd-spf-perl
nobody have no write permissions in postfix private socket dir
No, the Postfix
45 matches
Mail list logo
