Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using SMTP time blocking methods is probably more
effective in the
long run and makes more efficient use of
On 16 juil. 2010, at 09:27, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
In Germany many companies have given up on content filtering because it is
not allowed to drop mail after accepting, if there is a chance that private
mail *could* be involved. So with content filter your only choice would be to
tag
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using SMTP time blocking methods is probably more
effective
Hi Everyone,
I have set up a mail server (on a VM) as per this article:
http://workaround.org/ispmail/lenny
I wish to host this server for a customer. However, I don't think it's best
practise to simply place the whole VM in a DMZ and port forward to it. My
question is, what should I do
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who has the time, avoiding content
filters and using
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I will say generically that for an OP who
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
Am 16.07.2010 09:27, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:06:44PM -0500, Stan
Hi all
i've been looking for a solution to rewrite a non FQDN to a valid domain with
postfix. my users are writing mails to +123...@sms and it should be rewriten to
+123...@sms.provider.tld.
Any ideas?
uwe
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:03:27 +0200
Von: Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Robert Schetterer
* Körner, Uwe uwe.koer...@t-systems.ch:
Hi all
i've been looking for a solution to rewrite a non FQDN to a valid
domain with postfix. my users are writing mails to +123...@sms and it
should be rewriten to +123...@sms.provider.tld.
append_dot_mydomain = yes
mydomain = provider.tld
which is
Am 16.07.2010 13:10, schrieb Steve:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:03:27 +0200
Von: Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat
Steve wrote:
[big snip]
So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user in
control.
Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate for all
users. So the only way to make the user happy is to delegate the control to
him.
Can't speek for all
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote:
Steve wrote:
[big snip]
So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user in
control.
Yes. The big problem is that no solution out there is 100% accurate for all
users. So the only way to make the user
* El Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:35:07PM +0200, escribiste:
* Adrian P. van Bloois adr...@accu.uu.nl:
Hi,
Can I automagically attach a different disclaimer for each domain?
if so, how? Are there different options?
Which program is appending the single disclaimer now?
None at al. :-)
--
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:55:17 +0200
Von: Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Steve wrote:
[big snip]
So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to have user
in
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:09:54 -0500
Von: Kenneth Marshall k...@rice.edu
An: Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu
CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote:
Steve
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:06:11PM +0200, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:09:54 -0500
Von: Kenneth Marshall k...@rice.edu
An: Mikael Bak mik...@t-online.hu
CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
On
Steve:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:44:23 -0400
Von: Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
Steve, I request that you end this thread.
Wietse
I've been running dovecot + postfix with a MySQL backend for a while now,
and been happy with it.
Now that I want to implement Sieve filtering, I discovered that I'm using
postfix's virtual transport instead of Dovecot's LDA.
Adding virtual_transport = dovecot to the main.cf file and
dovecot
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 03:28:07PM -0700, Corey Chandler wrote:
I've been running dovecot + postfix with a MySQL backend for a while now,
and been happy with it.
Now that I want to implement Sieve filtering, I discovered that I'm using
postfix's virtual transport instead of Dovecot's LDA.
Corey Chandler:
Jul 16 14:52:13 Leavenworth postfix/pipe[31344]: fatal: user=
command-line attribute specifies mail system vmail group id 1008
As the error message says, you MUST NOT run non-Postfix programs
with Postfix user or group privileges.
Wietse
21 matches
Mail list logo