Daniel Reinhardt
Website: www.cryptodan.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Junior Network Security Engineer
- Original Message
From: mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:58:45 AM
Subject: Re: Body checks and warning log
Hi Victor,
Perfect, thanks a lot! This is the information I was looking for.
Durk
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:36:10PM +0100, Durk Strooisma wrote:
I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that
I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that
queue IDs were generated randomly, which means they should be
practically unique.
Postfix behaves as documented. Please point out where the
Rob Klingsten wrote:
[snip]
Ok, just when you think you have it all figured out ... :(
Thank you very much for the info, I will go back to the drawing board
for my delivery stage from dspam. Thought it was all working well.
consider running dspam in relay mode
Hi,
i have a problem with stopping spams. The situation is this. Spammers
are using our domains to send spam to us. This is one of the example:
Let's think that one of the our domains is mydomain1.com and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is real user in our system.
The spammers send me mail this way:
HELO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
i have a problem with stopping spams. The situation is this. Spammers
are using our domains to send spam to us. This is one of the example:
Let's think that one of the our domains is mydomain1.com and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is real user in our system.
The spammers send
On Fri, November 14, 2008 10:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there some way to block this way, or to set some kind of
authentication only if in MAIL FROM: field they use our domains?
How can i solve this problem at all?
mouss schrieb:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
i have a problem with stopping spams. The situation is this. Spammers
are using our domains to send spam to us. This is one of the example:
...
How can i solve this problem at all?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks
Durk Strooisma:
I was examining my Postfix logs and saw two sequential sessions using
the same queue ID. I was a bit surprised as I had the assumption that
queue IDs were generated randomly, which means they should be
practically unique.
Postfix behaves as documented. Please point out
Dear Wietse,
thank you for your detailed explanation.
In the future, would you consider having unique identifiers generated
by an algorithm which would take into account the CPU ID (or other
unique identifier), process ID time, so as to make it a unique ID
worldwide, or is this not something
Ok, just when you think you have it all figured out ... :(
Thank you very much for the info, I will go back to the drawing board
for my delivery stage from dspam. Thought it was all working well.
consider running dspam in relay mode
http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com/text/relay-howto.txt
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond:
Dear Wietse,
thank you for your detailed explanation.
In the future, would you consider having unique identifiers generated
by an algorithm which would take into account the CPU ID (or other
unique identifier), process ID time, so as to make it a unique ID
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Jeffrey Shawn Klotz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having DNS issues when delivering mail on a postfix server.
The server seems to run fine for several hours.
After a while, emails start to stay in the queue with the following error
for all domains:
postqueue -p
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Jeffrey Shawn Klotz wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Jeffrey Shawn Klotz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having DNS issues when delivering mail on a postfix server.
The server seems to run fine for several hours. After a while, emails
start to stay in the queue with the
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with timeout after DATA
For example:
timeout after DATA (0 bytes) from
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Petr Janda wrote:
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with timeout after DATA
For example:
timeout after DATA (0
D G Teed wrote:
[snip]
I'm afraid this is misunderstood, or I didn't explain it carefully enough.
The ISP sending the bounce notification is my home ISP, not
the ISP for my work. At home I run a small postfix
which relays all outbound to my home's Cable ISP's SMTP.
The Cable ISP's SMTP
Hi all, I've exhausted myself trying to figure this one out... im using
courier-authlib and its setup and working properly, imap/pop works fine,
authtest from the commandline works fine.
for some reason, my smtp auth wont use it, it says it cant even find it..
#cat
James Grant wrote:
Hi all, I've exhausted myself trying to figure this one out... im using
courier-authlib and its setup and working properly, imap/pop works fine,
authtest from the commandline works fine.
for some reason, my smtp auth wont use it, it says it cant even find it..
#cat
On November 14, 2008 02:45:56 pm Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
James Grant wrote:
Hi all, I've exhausted myself trying to figure this one out... im
using courier-authlib and its setup and working properly, imap/pop
works fine, authtest from the commandline works fine.
for some
James Grant:
Is the smtp service chroot'ed? Doing so is a real exorcise in getting it
to work.
gah that was exactly it! a chroot wont follow symlinks out of the chroot
will it? I disabled the chroot in master.cf and it works fine. I think for
now im just going to run smtpd without
On 11/14/2008, Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Postfix as released by me does not chroot anything. Some
Linux distributors insist on setting up things this way,
which only can give Postfix a bad reputation.
Perhaps if enough people complain it will be changed.
I'd be very
Charles Marcus:
On 11/14/2008, Wietse Venema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Postfix as released by me does not chroot anything. Some
Linux distributors insist on setting up things this way,
which only can give Postfix a bad reputation.
Perhaps if enough people complain it will be changed.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:07AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with timeout after DATA
For example:
Victor Duchovni:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:07AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond
me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with timeout
Until then, sysctl is your friend.
*BSD: sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.sack.enable=0
L*n*x: sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_sack=0 (and I suppose something
equivalent if you use Linux IPv6 support).
Wietse
Thanks for your suggestions, Ive had both SACK and Window Scaling
turned off for the
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 06:14:33PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Victor Duchovni:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:07AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:01:24PM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
Welcome to more suggestions, before I result to the final working
solution: force the stupid admins to allow ICMP traffic with a shotgun
:)
I would have done that first... There is a reason why ICMP is part of
the IP protocol suite,
On 14 Nov 2008, at 05:29, Ville Walveranta wrote:
...
Actually there won't be an Exchange server any more; I'm replacing it
with Postfix. It's a small environment and there isn't a dedicated
server for Exchange available; it's been sharing a server with AD
which is a bad idea in the first
29 matches
Mail list logo
