On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 12:34 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
Clunk Werclick wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 10:39 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
Clunk Werclick wrote:
Hello.
Postfix is new to me and I have spent many hours of reading and testing.
I do not have much experience to look at things and say
On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 07:31 CEST,
Olivier Nicole o...@cs.ait.ac.th wrote:
In my Postfix configuration I have
local_recipient_maps = unix:passwd.byname $alias_maps
ldap:$config_directory/ldap_local_recipient
What is the expected output of the ldap: part?
I'm wondering if anybody knows of a way to include sieve in postfix
instead of procmail? Or are all the sieve implementations so tightly
integrated to the mailer that this is not possible?
I currently have postfix - procmail - zarafa, and would like to have
postfix - sieve - zarafa. Is that
* Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at:
I'm wondering if anybody knows of a way to include sieve in postfix
instead of procmail?
User dovecot deliver instead of procmail when doing local delivery.
That's it.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
On Mittwoch 22 Juli 2009 Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I'm wondering if anybody knows of a way to include sieve in postfix
instead of procmail?
User dovecot deliver instead of procmail when doing local delivery.
That's it.
Oh, nice. Only problem is, I'd need to deliver to an external program.
You might be interested in knowing about a Linux and Open Source based
email collaboration product for companies.
Check -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synovel_CollabSuite
http://www.synovel.com/collab/
It has a web based administration panel for managing servers and users
along with desktop
2009/7/22 Clunk Werclick clunk.wercl...@wibblywobblyteapot.co.uk:
What I am not understanding is this is my list:
debug_peer_list,fast_flush_domains,mynetworks,permit_mx_backup_networks,qmqpd_authorized_clients,smtpd_access_maps
I don't understand which 'table type' is in charge of virtual
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 20:31 +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
2009/7/22 Clunk Werclick clunk.wercl...@wibblywobblyteapot.co.uk:
What I am not understanding is this is my list:
debug_peer_list,fast_flush_domains,mynetworks,permit_mx_backup_networks,qmqpd_authorized_clients,smtpd_access_maps
I
* Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at wrote:
I currently have postfix - procmail - zarafa, and would like to have
postfix - sieve - zarafa. Is that possible via a milter maybe? The
sieve implementation would need to be able to call an external program
to deliver mail, but the
On Mittwoch 22 Juli 2009 Stefan Förster wrote:
ince you mentioned procmail, my buest guess is that your
Postfix/Zarafa integration is similar to the wiki page at
http://zarafa.com/wiki/index.php/MTA_integration
This leaves me slightly puzzled, because I can't imagine where you'd
want to
* Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at wrote:
On Mittwoch 22 Juli 2009 Stefan Förster wrote:
What excatly are you trying to do with Sieve filtering?
Yes, zarafa-dagent delivers, but you can tell it where:
See http://forums.zarafa.com/viewtopic.php?f=11t=2759
Example
i like to have postfix strip these chars in headers so amavisd does not block
the mails with bad header, well maybe it kill dkim :/
but is there better options ?
reject and let senders solve it ?
--
xpoint
On Wed, July 22, 2009 11:17, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at:
I'm wondering if anybody knows of a way to include sieve in postfix
instead of procmail?
User dovecot deliver instead of procmail when doing local delivery.
That's it.
sieve reject
I'm setting up a Postfix Mail Server. Applications from different nodes will be
sending their mails from this mail server using the mail clients in the
application.
Here are the postfix details:
-
#:postconf -n
alias_database = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases
On Wed, July 22, 2009 11:54, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Michael Monnerie michael.monne...@is.it-management.at:
Oh, nice. Only problem is, I'd need to deliver to an external program.
Or did you mean local from the postfix POV, and that external delivery
is possible from dovecot, and that
On 21-Jul-2009, at 16:43, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:16 AM +0200 Patrick Ben Koetter p...@state-of-mind.de
wrote:
These days OpenSSL is able to determine which random source it
wants to
use. This might explain why it is empty in a Postfix install on Mac
OS X,
Guy wrote:
Is there any documentation that describes the mail flow for different
messages (real address at local domain, non-existant address at local
domain and remote address) when using /usr/sbin/sendmail to send them?
I'd like to know what parts of Postfix it actually uses and which
parts
Hi Brian,
2009/7/22 Brian Evans - Postfix List grkni...@scent-team.com:
Guy wrote:
Messages from sendmail(1) command enter via pickup.
A good flow diagram can be seen here:
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html#overview
There is generally no verification of addresses using
Guy wrote:
Hi Brian,
2009/7/22 Brian Evans - Postfix List grkni...@scent-team.com:
Could someone also tell me whether virtual_transport_maps are
completely ignored if I have transport_maps set or whether
transport_maps overrides virtual_transport_maps only if it gets a
match?
LuKreme wrote:
On 21-Jul-2009, at 16:43, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:16 AM +0200 Patrick Ben Koetter
p...@state-of-mind.de wrote:
These days OpenSSL is able to determine which random source it wants to
use. This might explain why it is empty in a Postfix install
Zakir Shaikh wrote:
Now, my problem is that when I send mails using webmail from the local
user configured through vPostmaster then the mails are getting signed
BUT the issue is that when the mails sent from different machines using
their applicaitons then the messages are delivered but Not
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i like to have postfix strip these chars in headers so amavisd does not block
the mails with bad header, well maybe it kill dkim :/
but is there better options ?
reject and let senders solve it ?
The better option is to configure amavisd-new to accept bad
headers.
uses dkimproxy 1.1
work fine in my box
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:35:12 -0500, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org
wrote:
Zakir Shaikh wrote:
Now, my problem is that when I send mails using webmail from the local
user configured through vPostmaster then the mails are getting signed
BUT the issue
Clunk Werclick wrote:
I think perhaps 4-12 queries per message is not optimal?
If server handle 50,000 a day X 12 that is quite a lot? I don't think
it is going to get may fields returned for .co.uk .uk in my database?
Postfix does the lookups required to route your mail properly.
I stress
On July 21, 2009 06:49:09 pm Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Ray wrote:
I have a solution, and It seems to work, just want to know if I'm going
to shoot myself in the foot.
I'm running postfix 2.6 with a number of virtual domains, all data stored
in a MySql database. Server is
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 11:04 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
Clunk Werclick wrote:
I think perhaps 4-12 queries per message is not optimal?
If server handle 50,000 a day X 12 that is quite a lot? I don't think
it is going to get may fields returned for .co.uk .uk in my database?
Postfix does
We get a lot of spam from a marketing company that uses hundreds of ip
addresses and hundreds of domain names but it always comes from
support at which ever names they are using that day.
My supervisor wants me to block all email coming from supp...@*.
I have concerns about blocking legitimate
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:31:35 -0600, Robert Lopez rlopez...@gmail.com
wrote:
We get a lot of spam from a marketing company that uses hundreds of ip
addresses and hundreds of domain names but it always comes from
support at which ever names they are using that day.
My supervisor wants me to
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 10:31 -0600, Robert Lopez wrote:
We get a lot of spam from a marketing company that uses hundreds of ip
addresses and hundreds of domain names but it always comes from
support at which ever names they are using that day.
My supervisor wants me to block all email coming
Robert Lopez wrote:
We get a lot of spam from a marketing company that uses hundreds of ip
addresses and hundreds of domain names but it always comes from
support at which ever names they are using that day.
My supervisor wants me to block all email coming from supp...@*.
I have concerns
--On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:28 AM -0600 LuKreme krem...@kreme.com
wrote:
On 21-Jul-2009, at 16:43, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:16 AM +0200 Patrick Ben Koetter
p...@state-of-mind.de
wrote:
These days OpenSSL is able to determine which random source it
wants
* Robert Lopez rlopez...@gmail.com:
We get a lot of spam from a marketing company that uses hundreds of ip
addresses and hundreds of domain names but it always comes from
support at which ever names they are using that day.
How do you know it's from the same company?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Hello all.
Is there any method to discard all mails coming to t...@test.com
except all mails coming from *...@test.com
We want to not allow some accounts to recieve emails from outside.
BR
oka...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all.
Is there any method to discard all mails coming to t...@test.com
except all mails coming from *...@test.com
We want to not allow some accounts to recieve emails from outside.
BR
Here's general instructions for this sort of thing:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 17:50, Noel Jones wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
i like to have postfix strip these chars in headers so amavisd does not
block the mails with bad header, well maybe it kill dkim
:/
but is there better options ?
reject and let senders solve it ?
The better option is
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 17:50, Noel Jones wrote:
You could configure postfix to reject such mail, but then
you'll lose otherwise legit mail.
yes legit problem also
This is probably a stupid question, but are those characters really
allowed in email
On Wed, July 22, 2009 18:31, Robert Lopez wrote:
Which postfix list would be best used for such a block? Could it be
sender_access?
http://www.google.dk/search?q=sender_localpart+postfwdie=utf-8oe=utf-8aq=trls=com.ubuntu:da-DK:unofficialclient=firefox-a
--
xpoint
thanks, that is what i'm looking for.
BR
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Noel Jonesnjo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
oka...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all.
Is there any method to discard all mails coming to t...@test.com
except all mails coming from *...@test.com
We want to not allow some
On Wed, July 22, 2009 21:27, Stefan Förster wrote:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 17:50, Noel Jones wrote:
You could configure postfix to reject such mail, but then
you'll lose otherwise legit mail.
yes legit problem also
This is probably a stupid question, but
Stefan Förster wrote:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 17:50, Noel Jones wrote:
You could configure postfix to reject such mail, but then
you'll lose otherwise legit mail.
yes legit problem also
This is probably a stupid question, but are those characters really
On Wed, July 22, 2009 21:41, Noel Jones wrote:
At any rate, unless 8 bit characters in headers are causing
some specific problem, it's not worth blocking them.
back to my first question on how to
--
xpoint
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 21:41, Noel Jones wrote:
At any rate, unless 8 bit characters in headers are causing
some specific problem, it's not worth blocking them.
back to my first question on how to
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#strict_7bit_headers
-- Noel
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:00, Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#strict_7bit_headers
if postfix changed defaults to yes, then i belive problematic senders would
change there problem
php mail() is imho not mime compliant
--
xpoint
what does others do if remote have a self signed ssl key, accept it ?
--
xpoint
On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:00, Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#strict_7bit_headers
if postfix changed defaults to yes, then i belive problematic
senders would change there problem
Oh please. The
Sahil Tandon:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:00, Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#strict_7bit_headers
if postfix changed defaults to yes, then i belive problematic
senders would change there problem
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:12, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:00, Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#strict_7bit_headers
if postfix changed defaults to yes, then i belive problematic
senders
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
Sahil Tandon:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:00, Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#strict_7bit_headers
if postfix changed defaults to yes, then i belive
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
Sahil Tandon:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 22:00, Noel Jones wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#strict_7bit_headers
if postfix changed defaults to
Benny Pedersen wrote:
what does others do if remote have a self signed ssl key, accept it ?
Yes, accept it. Opportunistic TLS does not imply more trust
than a non encrypted connection; you're willing to make a
non-encrypted connection to that client. TLS in this case
indicates encryption,
Hi lately im having problem using postfix with a specific domain when i
received its mails, my server shows the next message
at first it seems like this: status=sent
but seconds later the log shows an error.
status=bounced (data format error. Command output: user: Message contains
invalid
I have a Posix mail server that serves as a gateway to an MS Exange
server. The Posix server contains aliases (stored in openldap) that
match the users in the MS Exchange server. So somebody could send an
e-mail to j...@example.com (the MX register for example.com is my Posix
server), this would
On Wed, July 22, 2009 23:14, Noel Jones wrote:
be strict in what you send, liberal in what you accept
ok
i try
postconf -e 'message_strip_charters = \346'
still amavisd give this
Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E6 hex): Subject: \346
why does postfix not use my strip ?
--
xpoint
On Wed, July 22, 2009 23:45, Noel Jones wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
what does others do if remote have a self signed ssl key, accept it ?
Yes, accept it. Opportunistic TLS does not imply more trust
than a non encrypted connection; you're willing to make a
non-encrypted connection to that
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 23:14, Noel Jones wrote:
be strict in what you send, liberal in what you accept
ok
i try
postconf -e 'message_strip_charters = \346'
still amavisd give this
Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E6 hex): Subject: \346
why does postfix not use my strip
Quoting Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 23:14, Noel Jones wrote:
be strict in what you send, liberal in what you accept
ok
i try
postconf -e 'message_strip_charters = \346'
still amavisd give this
Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E6 hex): Subject: \346
why does postfix
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 21-Jul-2009, at 16:43, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:16 AM +0200 Patrick Ben Koetter
p...@state-of-mind.de wrote:
These days OpenSSL is able to determine which random source it wants
to
use. This might explain why it is
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, July 22, 2009 23:14, Noel Jones wrote:
be strict in what you send, liberal in what you accept
ok
i try
postconf -e 'message_strip_charters = \346'
% postconf message_strip_charters
postconf: warning: message_strip_charters: unknown
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Oscar Cruz wrote:
Hi lately im having problem using postfix with a specific domain when i
received its mails, my server shows the next message
at first it seems like this: status=sent
Incomplete log report.
but seconds later the log shows an error.
status=bounced
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:00, Noel Jones wrote:
Did you run postfix reload?
yes
Do you have postfix 2.3 or later?
2.5.7
Show evidence. postconf -n output, contents of your
message, etc.
do i really have to :/
--
xpoint
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:04, d.h...@yournetplus.com wrote:
It would seem you have misspelled the word 'characters' within the parameter.
my bad here, but my main.cf have not that spelling fail, i verified it
--
xpoint
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:07, Sahil Tandon wrote:
% postconf message_strip_charters
postconf: warning: message_strip_charters: unknown parameter
be more helpfull then critize my spellings
--
xpoint
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:07, Sahil Tandon wrote:
% postconf message_strip_charters
postconf: warning: message_strip_charters: unknown parameter
be more helpfull then critize my spellings
Don't shoot the messenger - he pointed out, in good faith, an
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:52, Joe wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:07, Sahil Tandon wrote:
% postconf message_strip_charters
postconf: warning: message_strip_charters: unknown parameter
be more helpfull then critize my spellings
Don't shoot the messenger - he
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:07, Sahil Tandon wrote:
% postconf message_strip_charters
postconf: warning: message_strip_charters: unknown parameter
be more helpfull then critize my spellings
I did not know it was a misspelling.
On Thu, July 23, 2009 02:29, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:07, Sahil Tandon wrote:
% postconf message_strip_charters
postconf: warning: message_strip_charters: unknown parameter
be more helpfull then critize
On 7/22/2009 5:35 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, July 23, 2009 02:29, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Benny Pedersenm...@junc.org wrote:
On Thu, July 23, 2009 01:07, Sahil Tandon wrote:
% postconf message_strip_charters
postconf: warning:
2009/7/23 Clunk Werclick clunk.wercl...@wibblywobblyteapot.co.uk:
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 11:04 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
Clunk Werclick wrote:
I think perhaps 4-12 queries per message is not optimal?
If server handle 50,000 a day X 12 that is quite a lot? I don't think
it is going to get may
68 matches
Mail list logo
