Am 17.04.2012 05:29, schrieb Mike Zupan:
We are looking to log all outbound emails in code.. not tailing a lot
or anything.. is there an area of the code I can look at first to get
an idea of where the final stop for emails through postfix go before
they are sent out. We are looking to log all
Hello
I need some feedbacks advices of experienced admins
I will have to setup in few monthes an email system
for approx 50K intensives users.
The only mandatory thing will be I must use HP proliant servers
The operating system will be FreeBSD or Linux
Thank you for any advices
Yes, for sure I did.
[root@fsrv02 log.d]# ll /usr/lib/sasl2/
total 52
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 957 2011-01-18 17:35 liblogin.la*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root18 2012-04-12 11:21 liblogin.so - liblogin.so.2.0.23*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root18 2012-04-12 11:21 liblogin.so.2 -
liblogin.so.2.0.23*
Here it is
[root@fsrv02 log.d]# ps auxw | grep sasl
root 20425 0.0 0.0 34484 812 ?Ss 10:49 0:00 saslauthd
-a shadow
root 20426 0.0 0.0 34484 536 ?S10:49 0:00 saslauthd
-a shadow
root 20427 0.0 0.0 34484 520 ?S10:49 0:00
You may try look up ZhangHuangbin, author of iredmail.org dbmailadmin.org,
a great postfix mail integrator. Nice guy.
For your case, see dbmail.org, a fast scalable sql based mail services.
Best regards.
Snowie
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 03:54 PM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
I need some
* Franck MAHE m...@civis.net:
Yes, for sure I did.
[root@fsrv02 log.d]# ll /usr/lib/sasl2/
your examples use /usr/lib64/... but you post /usr/lib/...
Could it be your problem is wrong paths e.g. for the saslauthd socket?
p@rick
--
All technical questions asked privately will be
You're right,
[root@fsrv02 log.d]# ll /usr/lib64/sasl2/
total 0
:-(
[root@fsrvpsg02 log.d]# rpm -qa | grep sasl2
lib64sasl2-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
libsasl2-plug-plain-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
libsasl2-plug-login-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
libsasl2-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
So I missed the point, I just installed
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished but working fine on my server. There's
room for improvement though (IPv6 missing, rsyslog spawning and lastline
Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished but working fine on my server. There's
room for improvement
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:50 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished
Am 17.04.2012 11:50, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished but working fine
Am 17.04.2012 12:09, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
Am 17.04.2012 11:50, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 12:09, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
Am 17.04.2012 11:50, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds
Am 17.04.2012 12:38, schrieb Henrik K:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
how do you act with us as example?
you are sending a message to me to MX barracuda.thelounge.net
well, you whitelist barracuda.thelounge.net
but you will never receive any message from our
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 12:38, schrieb Henrik K:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
how do you act with us as example?
you are sending a message to me to MX barracuda.thelounge.net
well, you whitelist
Am 17.04.2012 12:47, schrieb Henrik K:
the majority has outgoing and incoming on the same IP?
in which world are you living?
Statistics speak for themselves. Come back with hard facts instead of
your FUD.
are you really too stupid not use the term FUD
as long you are not understand what
On 2012-04-17 12:04, Sam Jones wrote:
And I would add that an inbound MX does not necessarily === the same
outbound server a domain would use. Typically anti-spam gateways or
hosted services used inbound on one IP, whereas outbound mail coming
from another IP and server.
Just imagine
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:54:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
the hard facts are that EVERY site using a dedicated
spamfilter (own appliance or external service) have
different IP's for MX and outgoing mail
So? Postpals also looks at whole /24 subnets and also can compare
sender/recipient
On 2012-04-17 12:09, Robert Schetterer wrote:
what about using
some tecs from here
http://mailfud.org/postpals/
Thanks for the link, that's pretty much what I was looking for. Guess
I'll have to improve my search engine skills ;)
--
Claudius
Am 17.04.2012 13:05, schrieb Henrik K:
Some people actually test theories before calling them nonsense. You
haven't made a single point why there would be non-benefits in running
postpals.
maybe you should have read my replies?
you are sending to the MX
you are whitelisting the MX
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a domain is
hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through greylisting in the
end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to make it easy on them!
It's fine to imagine many
Am 17.04.2012 13:37, schrieb Henrik K:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a domain is
hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through greylisting in the
end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to make it
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:29:23PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
you are sending to the MX
you are whitelisting the MX
wonderful, the MX is mistly not the outgoing server
you are receiving a spam-message
your user has a autoreply
with bad luck you are whitelisting the spamming server
So a
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik
You do realize that the whitelisting should only apply to direct MTA
rbl/greylisting/ptr/etc rules? If that's your _only_ defence, then yes I
guess you should not use postpals.
if you think it makes sense for you do it
but realize that others have more
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your practical expierience
is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with 15.000 RCPT since years - so stop your idiotic
personal attacks while nobody attacked you until you
creeped
Zitat von Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your practical expierience
is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with 15.000 RCPT since years - so stop your idiotic
personal
Am 17.04.2012 14:00, schrieb Henrik K:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your practical expierience
is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:06:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 14:00, schrieb Henrik K:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your practical expierience
is
Hey!
I finally installed a postfix mail server this past weekend. Pretty
straightforward with the awesome docs! Well, once ya find it all ;-)
In my config, I declared
smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/lists/traps
with entries in /etc/postfix/lists/traps,
On 2012-04-17 20:20, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
Hey!
I finally installed a postfix mail server this past weekend. Pretty
straightforward with the awesome docs! Well, once ya find it all ;-)
In my config, I declared
On 4/17/2012 1:20 PM, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
Hey!
I finally installed a postfix mail server this past weekend. Pretty
straightforward with the awesome docs! Well, once ya find it all ;-)
In my config, I declared
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:55:05PM +0200, Claudius wrote:
On 2012-04-17 12:04, Sam Jones wrote:
And I would add that an inbound MX does not necessarily === the
same outbound server a domain would use. Typically anti-spam
gateways or hosted services used inbound on one IP, whereas
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 02:25 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
The access(5) man page includes, in part:
...
So your claim is not supported by the documentation.
http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
If you wish to make a case that postfix does not behave as
documented, you'll need to provide clear
On 4/17/2012 3:55 PM, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
FROM: n###@###.com
TO: b...@domain.com, m...@domain.com
For that message send, postfix logs on my end show:
Apr 17 11:52:48 mail postfix/smtpd[23367]: connect from
smtp.myprovider.com[1.2.3.4]
Apr 17 11:52:48 mail
On 4/17/2012 2:55 PM, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 02:25 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
The access(5) man page includes, in part:
...
So your claim is not supported by the documentation.
http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
If you wish to make a case that postfix does not
Brian
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 04:09 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
It looks to me like it's being handled as two separate transactions
where one gets discarded and one passes through.
This is a case of your provider trying to be helpful and splitting each
recipient into a new
Quoting Henrik K h...@hege.li:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a domain is
hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through greylisting in the
end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to make it easy on
n756...@50mail.com:
Do you know if that kind of recipient-splitting is specifically
disallowed by any RFC?
It is not forbidden, and it is in fact the basis of how qmail works.
Wietse
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 04:44:49PM -0400, Patrick Domack wrote:
Why bother whitelisting any ip address? I have my system flag the
outgoing and incoming email address.
Am I defensive or stupid for wondering what's the point of your question?
Surely people whitelist all kinds of things with
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:33:31AM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
Still, is it too much to ask for looking at
things from many angles or backing up claims with any kind of
statistics or science instead of personal gut feelings?
Where/how would one collect such data? My mail stream differs from
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:13:55PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:33:31AM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
Still, is it too much to ask for looking at
things from many angles or backing up claims with any kind of
statistics or science instead of personal gut feelings?
41 matches
Mail list logo
