Santiago Romero:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL -lsasl
make
See the INSTALL file. Also on-line as http://www.postfix.org/INSTALL.html
See also the SASL_README file for SASL-specific command syntax.
Ok, I see it:
make makefiles CCARGS=-DUSE_SASL_AUTH
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
This only affects mail when it enters postfix (or more
specifically, when it leaves the content_filter). Mail
already in the queue will not be affected. Mail that bypasses
the content_filter will not be affected.
Why is to= logged above? There must be a
Rob McEwen wrote:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
That's Rob's list, haha! It's cool to hear folks are using it. He's
been plugging it on spam-l for a while.
Stan, I really do like you... and I don't want to make an enemy out of
you... but there are massive mis-characterizations in that statement
Zitat von Stan Hoeppner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In this scenario you're better off trying to help others clean up their
networks than to try to block or filter based on the content. As you
stated, they are the Gorillas of mail and you can't really block them.
So, work with them. Believe it or not,
On Tors, August 21, 2008 05:10, James Robertson wrote:
We cannot block hotmail due to valid mail coming from there. Is there a
way in Postfix that could filter out this junk somehow?
hotmail use spf, let recipient benefit from this, whitelist sender from
address book with spf in mta level,
hotmail use spf, let recipient benefit from this, whitelist sender from
address book with spf in mta level, no need to be smart :)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this could you elaborate? The email
is coming from Hotmails server and therefore SPF is valid.
shourt:
dont
Tait Grove:
Aug 20 15:49:02 post-app2 postfix/smtpd[23676]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
ug-out-1314.google.com[66.249.92.174]: 450 4.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Recipient address rejected: unverified address: Address verification in
progress; from=[EMAIL PROTECTED] to=[EMAIL PROTECTED] proto=ESMTP
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:16:22 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema)
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Please read the documents that I referred you to.
Yes, I did but I am not sure what the solution is? I see that the D
flag adds a Delivered-To header and that
it checks the
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
Hello,
When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine. There's sasl issues
with OE, if your using sasl i do have a fix for those i'll have to look in
my main.cf, but it's an issue.
Dave.
SASL works for me with OE.
It's TLS that is failing. I will
Michael wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
Hello,
When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine. There's sasl issues
with OE, if your using sasl i do have a fix for those i'll have to look in
my main.cf, but it's an issue.
Dave.
SASL works for me with OE.
It's
Noel Jones wrote:
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I want a single account to only accept NDRs. Other email should be
rejected.
Would the following work correctly?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/receieve_only
...
/etc/postfix/receieve_only:
I have small problem with postfix when trying to switch to mysql for postfix.
I used:
$sudo postmap -q [EMAIL PROTECTED] hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$sudo postmap -q [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-list.cf mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql.cf
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to test the
* Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exactly.
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Spam_DNS_Lists#Postfix_Examples
this example lacks the usage described further down in Name Based DNS
Lookup
reject_rbl_sender hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com=127.0.0.2
I fixed that now in the
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I want a single account to only accept NDRs. Other email should be
rejected.
Would the following work correctly?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/receieve_only
...
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
[snip]
ndr_only = check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/ndr_senders,reject
if you want to check the recipient, rename your map.
if you want to check the sender, rename your check.
$ cat /etc/postfix/ndr_senders
OK
This will never match a
Jes Andersen wrote:
found out it was a chroot problem.
My fix if any comes by the same problem was to add this to the startup script:
if [ -e /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock ]; then
if [ -e /var/spool/postfix/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock ]; th$
rm /var/spool/postfix/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
use TCP instead of creating mysql sockets all around your fs.
I'll rather have the higher efficiency from a unix socket and besides
my mysql is network disabled ;)
Even looking for a way to handle some caching of the response. Also
working on a more push based system, but I don't like the need
mouss wrote:
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
[snip]
ndr_only = check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/ndr_senders,reject
if you want to check the recipient, rename your map.
if you want to check the sender, rename your check.
$ cat /etc/postfix/ndr_senders
OK
This will never
Jes Andersen wrote:
use TCP instead of creating mysql sockets all around your fs.
I'll rather have the higher efficiency from a unix socket and besides
my mysql is network disabled ;)
Then use DOS. your unix is spending too much time switching contexts and
checking permissions.
Do you
Michael wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
Hello,
When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine. There's sasl issues
with OE, if your using sasl i do have a fix for those i'll have to look in
my main.cf, but it's an issue.
Dave.
SASL works for me with OE.
It's TLS that is
LuKreme wrote:
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after
Noel Jones wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately
mouss wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is
Then use DOS. your unix is spending too much time switching contexts and
checking permissions.
Do you have actual measurements or are you just speculating? the benefits of
a tcp connection generally outweight the handshake costs. and with
connection caching, the handshake costs are
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
first remove (or hold) the old mail or requeue it. then make sure the
message passes via the smtpd where you added the check_mx_access call.
As Noel said, use postmap to test your map, and if needed use -v to get
more logs.
postmap outputs the correct
At this point I think the only explanation is that the
recipient MX didn't match what is in your table. It does
appear that the lookup occurred, and no match was found.
One possibility is that your DNS is borked and not properly
looking up MX records. Test with:
# dig example.com MX
Dear users, today an user told me he was recieving too many spam in a
very short period of time. I took a look at the log files and what he
told me is true. :(
But... it just happens to him, nothing else is recieving spam. The
server is running Postfix + SpamAssassin + Clamav and the filters
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
At this point I think the only explanation is that the
recipient MX didn't match what is in your table. It does
appear that the lookup occurred, and no match was found.
One possibility is that your DNS is borked and not properly
looking up MX records. Test with:
Noel Jones escribió:
Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática wrote:
Dear users, today an user told me he was recieving too many spam in a
very short period of time. I took a look at the log files and what he
told me is true. :(
But... it just happens to him, nothing else is recieving spam.
Ronald F. Guilmette:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wietse wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette:
client_in_my_networks=[yes/no]
That might work (under a better name) but it should not encourage
requests to simply dump all the low-level Postfix predicates in
the policy protocol:
Well, it's
Yes, that's fine. Although it would be easier to just set
smtpd_delay_reject back to it's default of yes, or remove it
from your config entirely.
Yes, I changed it around and that allowed me to specify the map in
smtpd_sender_restrictions=
Just one question so I can better my
Dear users, I'm dealing with backscatter and trying to write some
expressions to use in body_checks.
I could not see how to write it down: if the From header has a e-mail
of my network, then the Message-ID must possess a domain.com part
(let's suppose domain.com is the local domain).
Any
- Original Message -
From: Brian Evans - Postfix List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: Postfix TLS and M$ Outlook Express
Michael wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
Hello,
When i used outlook express
34 matches
Mail list logo
