On 2010-01-22 Carlos Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
This is a client IP not a sender, e. g. 'MAIL FROM: br...@example.com'
The IP should go into a file referenced by a check_client_access
restriction.
I think I still don't have a
Hello everybody,
I got a hole set 20 of Debian systems connected to mobile broadband
internet. They are behind a NAT of with dynamic ip's.
I want these systems to be able to sent emails to my server for all
kind of reasons like monitoring, security updates etcetera.
I want to use postfix to
Jelle de Jong:
Hello everybody,
I got a hole set 20 of Debian systems connected to mobile broadband
internet. They are behind a NAT of with dynamic ip's.
I want these systems to be able to sent emails to my server for all
kind of reasons like monitoring, security updates etcetera.
I
Jozsef Kadlecsik:
Hello,
We plan to add the possibility for our users to choose that messages
categorized as spam are put on the hold queue instead of the default
reject. Thus it'll be possible to release the false positives, which
can make life easier for them.
Currently I can see
Dear
I don't understand why but i think that Postfix did want to send the
authentication request in the SMTP protocol.
In this case , the client (thunderbird) cannot send authentication
parameters trough Internet.
When executing saslfinger, there is not information in the -- mechanisms
on
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Wietse Venema wrote:
Jozsef Kadlecsik:
How could one achieve that the held messages are separated from the normal
traffic (i.e. hold queue on another partition), but if the messages cannot
be held, then those gets rejected instead of queued?
Given Postfix's
On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it
is awaiting the next command from the sender.
The key word is SHOULD, as opposed to
Jozsef Kadlecsik:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Wietse Venema wrote:
Jozsef Kadlecsik:
How could one achieve that the held messages are separated from the normal
traffic (i.e. hold queue on another partition), but if the messages cannot
be held, then those gets rejected instead of queued?
Martijn de Munnik:
On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it
is awaiting the next command from the sender.
The key
Victor Duchovni wrote, on 23-01-10 17:48:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:31:47PM +0100, Jelle de Jong wrote:
postconf -e 'smtp_tls_security_level = encrypt'
Is this SMTP client going to send all mail to a small set of TLS enabled
relay hosts? Or are you choosing to not be able to send any
In case of severe server overload, with postscreen(8) complaining
about lookup and update times around 400ms almost every mail, is it
(reasonably) safe as a last desperate measure to put $data_directory,
or at least the file referenced by $postscreen_cache_map, on a ramdisk
(e.g. tmpfs with
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads
An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while
it is awaiting the next command
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 06:08:40PM +0100, Stefan Foerster wrote:
In case of severe server overload, with postscreen(8) complaining
about lookup and update times around 400ms almost every mail, is it
(reasonably) safe as a last desperate measure to put $data_directory,
or at least the file
Jelle de Jong wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote, on 23-01-10 17:48:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:31:47PM +0100, Jelle de Jong wrote:
postconf -e 'smtp_tls_security_level = encrypt'
Is this SMTP client going to send all mail to a small set of TLS enabled
relay hosts? Or are you choosing to not be
On Jan 23, 2010, at 9:17, Martijn de Munnik mart...@youngguns.nl
wrote:
SHOULD equals MUST unless you have a really good reason. I'm
trying to figure out if somebody on the list knows a really good
reason.
There is no really good reason for a 3 second timeout in a public
server. There
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:59:37PM +0100, Jelle de Jong wrote:
postconf -e 'smtp_tls_mandatory_protocols = !SSLv2, !TLSv1'
Why disable both SSLv2 and TLSv1?! Leave this setting at its default
value, or disable just SSLv2. Does your client or server correctly handle
SSLv3, but fail to
Stefan Foerster:
In case of severe server overload, with postscreen(8) complaining
about lookup and update times around 400ms almost every mail, is it
(reasonably) safe as a last desperate measure to put $data_directory,
or at least the file referenced by $postscreen_cache_map, on a ramdisk
Stefan Foerster put forth on 1/23/2010 11:08 AM:
In case of severe server overload, with postscreen(8) complaining
about lookup and update times around 400ms almost every mail, is it
(reasonably) safe as a last desperate measure to put $data_directory,
or at least the file referenced by
Is there a fix for the 451 4.3.0 Error: queue file write error yet? I
heard to increase the smtp_proxy_timeout = 600s in the main.cf file, but
then I heard that can run down your server.
Is there any patches or hot fixes that actually work? I have Postfix 9.3.0
and the 451 error is still not
19 matches
Mail list logo
