Hi List,
I have read the documentation, and do not understand if this is possible,
but I think it should be. I have a spam filter that is required to listen
on the MX of my domain, but it does not support alias expansion, so the
postfix server has to do the expansion then send the message back
On 27/08/2013 6:09 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 08/27/2013 05:24 AM, John Allen wrote:
On 26/08/2013 9:00 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/26/2013 7:49 PM, LuKreme wrote:
OK, now that port 587 is working, I would like to disable user
submission via port 25. Not right now, but in a bit once people
On 27 Aug 2013, at 16:09 , Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> A simpler way to do that would be to not put these networks in mynetworks.
Right. I have nothing in mynetworks but the two servers that sit next to each
other. No one on the LAN is in mynetworks.
I was hesitant on taking the web server out, but
On 08/27/2013 05:24 AM, John Allen wrote:
On 26/08/2013 9:00 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/26/2013 7:49 PM, LuKreme wrote:
OK, now that port 587 is working, I would like to disable user
submission via port 25. Not right now, but in a bit once people have
a chance to change their settings.
Wha
On 08/25/2013 08:11 PM, Niclas Arndt wrote:
Hi,
Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but at least a bunch of experts
are listening.
I am using Spamhaus (and other methods) and over time I have amassed a
list of IP ranges that (according to Spamhaus) shouldn't be sending
e-mail at all. One p
lcon...@go2france.com:
> >> first machine does reject_unverified_recipient, and sends verified
> >> recipients via relayhost to the 2nd machine for delivery of verified
> >> recipients.
> >>
> >> now we see reject_unverified_recipient is verifying through the
> >> relayhost
> >>
> >> is there a way
On Tuesday 27/08/2013 at 3:04 pm, Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/27/2013 2:52 PM, lcon...@go2france.com wrote:
outbound flow
first machine does reject_unverified_recipient, and sends verified
recipients via relayhost to the 2nd machine for delivery of verified
recipients.
now we see reject_unve
Noel Jones:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 8/27/2013 2:52 PM, lcon...@go2france.com wrote:
> >
> > outbound flow
> >
> > first machine does reject_unverified_recipient, and sends verified
> > recipients via relayhost to the 2nd machine for delivery of verified
> > recipien
On 8/27/2013 2:52 PM, lcon...@go2france.com wrote:
>
> outbound flow
>
> first machine does reject_unverified_recipient, and sends verified
> recipients via relayhost to the 2nd machine for delivery of verified
> recipients.
>
> now we see reject_unverified_recipient is verifying through the
> r
outbound flow
first machine does reject_unverified_recipient, and sends verified
recipients via relayhost to the 2nd machine for delivery of verified
recipients.
now we see reject_unverified_recipient is verifying through the
relayhost
is there a way to override the first machine's relayh
On 8/27/2013 11:36 AM, John Allen wrote:
>> On 8/26/2013 10:24 PM, John Allen wrote:
>>
>>> I based it something that Noel Jones wrote way back in 2008.
>> I doubt that Noel suggested anything like this.
2008 was a long time ago, possibly I've learned a thing or two since
then. Regardless, I think
Fabio Sangiovanni:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm setting up postfix as mx for some domains. According to the docs, my
> setup should fall in the 'relay_domain' class, since I need to relay
> messages for those domains to an internal host (is this correct?).
That is correct. When your server is not the fin
On 8/26/2013 10:24 PM, John Allen wrote:
I based it something that Noel Jones wrote way back in 2008.
I doubt that Noel suggested anything like this.
Create a file of the networks you wish to deny access to eg.
“Deny_Mynetworks_Access” the content of which will be the same networks
as those f
Hi list,
I'm setting up postfix as mx for some domains. According to the docs, my
setup should fall in the 'relay_domain' class, since I need to relay
messages for those domains to an internal host (is this correct?).
I need to implement a policy, that is an exception to the standard flow
po
/dev/rob0:
> > Aug 26 21:21:35 [postfix/tlsproxy] CONNECT from
> > [209.85.219.51]:41193
> > Aug 26 21:21:36 [postfix/postscreen] NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> > [209.85.219.51]:41193: 450 4.3.2 Service currently unavailable;
> > from=, to=, proto=ESMTP,
> > helo=
> > Aug 26 21:21:36 [postfix/tlspr
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:56:42AM -0700, Grant wrote:
> >> >> >> SUBJECT: Delivery status notification
> >> >> >> This is an automatically generated Delivery Status
> >> >> >> Notification. Delivery to the following recipients was
> >> >> >> aborted after 7 second(s): mas...@masked.com
> >> >> >
Leo Baltus:
> Before this however we run
> /local/pf/libexec/post-install queue_directory=... create-missing
> so the neccesary directories are created. I must say that I find it
> redundant, our management system should have created them in the
> first place.
First, post-install is an internal
On 2013.08.27 00.32, LuKreme wrote:
That seem like a bit much. I allow the web-server (which hosts the
webmail) in mynetworks, since users mailing from there are already
authenticated. I can see there are situations where it would be a
good idea.
web mail users should perform proper smtp authe
Op 23/08/2013 om 09:51:07 -0400, schreef Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Leo Baltus:
> > > Op 19/08/2013 om 13:11:04 -0400, schreef Wietse Venema:
> > > > Leo Baltus:
> > > > > > > However, I did notice that postfix exec()'s new processes using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > path to the binar
Grant:
> Aug 26 21:21:35 [postfix/tlsproxy] CONNECT from [209.85.219.51]:41193
> Aug 26 21:21:36 [postfix/postscreen] NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> [209.85.219.51]:41193: 450 4.3.2 Service currently unavailable;
> from=, to=, proto=ESMTP,
> helo=
> Aug 26 21:21:36 [postfix/tlsproxy] DISCONNECT [209.
>> >> >> SUBJECT: Delivery status notification
>> >> >> This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
>> >> >> Delivery to the following recipients was aborted after 7 second(s):
>> >> >> mas...@masked.com
>> >> >
>> >> > If you want that mail, whitelist them,
>> >>
>> >> They sh
On 8/26/2013 10:24 PM, John Allen wrote:
> I based it something that Noel Jones wrote way back in 2008.
I doubt that Noel suggested anything like this.
> Create a file of the networks you wish to deny access to eg.
> “Deny_Mynetworks_Access” the content of which will be the same networks
> as th
22 matches
Mail list logo
