Am 19.02.2015 um 20:32 schrieb Vernon Fort:
I have a barracuda spam firewall that my postfix setup simply relays
emails to for scanning, via the transport file
complete wrong setup - the barracuda crap (we used it for nearly a
decade and it became unacceptable for so much reaosns) is
On 2/19/2015 1:37 PM, ab wrote:
Thanks for the link
I have a few questions about it.
Would i have to a list of all alias and then specify who can send to them or
can i do it for just one alias?
Thanks
Adam
If all the aliases have the same list of allowed users, then you can
just add
On 2/19/2015 1:23 PM, ab wrote:
Hi All
I am looking for a way to block access to an alias ( i.e stuff@domain )
apart from a selected few users
Is this doable?
Thanks
Adam
The general idea is outlined here:
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html#internal
-- Noel
I have a barracuda spam firewall that my postfix setup simply relays emails to
for scanning, via the transport file. The problem I have is when the barracuda
device rejects the message(s), they sit in the queue with either no connection
to host or connection reset/refused. Is there a way that
Hi All
I am looking for a way to block access to an alias ( i.e stuff@domain )
apart from a selected few users
Is this doable?
Thanks
Adam
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Block-access-to-alias-apart-from-list-of-users-tp75039.html
Sent from the
Thanks for the link
I have a few questions about it.
Would i have to a list of all alias and then specify who can send to them or
can i do it for just one alias?
Thanks
Adam
--
View this message in context:
besides that a off-list reply is rude and I mean really 100 % Mails
containing certain words is laughable - if it would be *that* easy spam
won't exist
The disadvantage of REJECT is that you tell the spammer hey there
is a spam filter there and the spammer will make their ways
around it.
We have a server with multiple IP addresses. We use the various IPs on
incoming to provide different types/levels of spam filtering. Currently
all outgoing mail uses the same single IP.
We would like for mail
that arrives on one particular IP to be relayed out on a different IP from
other mail.
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file = /root/ssl/private/$mydomain.mail.key
Are there any destinations for which you need client certs to gain
access? If not set these empty.
I thought these were needed for
Am 19.02.2015 um 12:32 schrieb John:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file = /root/ssl/private/$mydomain.mail.key
Are there any destinations for which you need client certs to gain
access? If not set these
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:32:29 John wrote:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file = /root/ssl/private/$mydomain.mail.key
Are there any destinations for which you need client certs to gain
access? If not set
st...@thornet.co.uk:
i.e. mail arriving on IP1, IP2 IP3? to relay out
on IP1, but mail mail arriving on IP4 to relay out on IP4. No local mail
will arrive on IP4.
We could do this with two instances of postfix,
Yes, that is a good idea. It also allows you to give
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to
Am 19.02.2015 um 13:30 schrieb John:
On 2/19/2015 6:35 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 12:32 schrieb John:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file = /root/ssl/private/$mydomain.mail.key
Are there
On 2/19/2015 6:35 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 12:32 schrieb John:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file = /root/ssl/private/$mydomain.mail.key
Are there any destinations for which you need
On 2/19/2015 7:48 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 13:30 schrieb John:
On 2/19/2015 6:35 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 12:32 schrieb John:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file =
Am 19.02.2015 um 13:22 schrieb John:
On 2/19/2015 6:49 AM, Richard James Salts wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:32:29 John wrote:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file = /root/ssl/private/$mydomain.mail.key
Are
On 2/19/2015 6:49 AM, Richard James Salts wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:32:29 John wrote:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file = /root/ssl/certs/$mydomain.mail.pem
smtp_tls_key_file = /root/ssl/private/$mydomain.mail.key
Are there any destinations for which you
Am 19.02.2015 um 14:11 schrieb John:
On 2/19/2015 7:48 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 13:30 schrieb John:
On 2/19/2015 6:35 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 12:32 schrieb John:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
smtp_tls_cert_file =
On 2/19/2015 8:18 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 14:11 schrieb John:
On 2/19/2015 7:48 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 13:30 schrieb John:
On 2/19/2015 6:35 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.02.2015 um 12:32 schrieb John:
On 2/16/2015 10:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
2 of large size or quantity; generous or abundant:
Definitely meant as above.
Steve
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 09:36:08PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
The disadvantage of REJECT is that you tell the spammer hey there
is a spam filter there and the spammer will make their ways
around it.
is *complete bullshit* and if you would have any clue about spam ...
I think it is
We would like to use the Cassandra database to persist the state of
abusive IPs which we would block from connecting in one of the
smtpd_xxx_restrictions clauses. We have systems that exist in multiple
data centers and Cassandra works really well for persisting data between
them, but Postfix
Am 19.02.2015 um 23:20 schrieb List:
We would like to use the Cassandra database to persist the state of
abusive IPs which we would block from connecting in one of the
smtpd_xxx_restrictions clauses. We have systems that exist in multiple
data centers and Cassandra works really well for
Am 19.02.2015 um 23:10 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 09:36:08PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
The disadvantage of REJECT is that you tell the spammer hey there
is a spam filter there and the spammer will make their ways
around it.
is *complete bullshit* and if you would
Dave Jones:
Feb 19 16:55:12 smtp1 postfwd[27034]: [RULES] rule=4, id=RCPTCNT1,
queue=C2B7433E7CE, client=unknown[172.27.0.203], sender=
r...@server1.example.com, recipient=r...@example.com, helo=
server1.example.com, proto=ESMTP, state=END-OF-MESSAGE, delay=0.00s,
hits=RCPTCNT1,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:29:51PM -, st...@thornet.co.uk wrote:
Thanks very much for your fulsome response.
I'll do some more checking
Note: :-)
fulsome: adjective
1 complimentary or flattering to an excessive degree: 'the press
are embarrassingly fulsome in their
We have lots of these in the logs
warning: TLS library problem:
15696:error:14094416:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:sslv3 alert certificate
unknown:s3_pkt.c:1256:SSL alert number 46:
Should I be worried
?
Thanks
Steve
Am 19.02.2015 um 16:53 schrieb st...@thornet.co.uk:
We have lots of these in the logs
warning: TLS library problem: 15696:error:14094416:SSL
routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:sslv3 alert certificate
unknown:s3_pkt.c:1256:SSL alert number 46:
Should I be worried?
without the realted loglines above
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:53:13PM -, st...@thornet.co.uk wrote:
We have lots of these in the logs
warning: TLS library problem:15696:error:14094416:
SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:
sslv3 alert certificate unknown:
s3_pkt.c:1256:
SSL alert number 46:
Should I be worried
You
* This is logged by your smtpd(8) server.
* A small set of organizations operate remote SMTP clients that
trigger this warning when sending email to you. Most
inbound
mail uses TLS without generating said warning.
[snip]
Viktor
Thanks very much for your fulsome
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues leolis...@solutti.com.br
wrote:
On 04/02/15 12:41, Wietse Venema wrote:
Use postfwd, set a rule that triggers with too many recipients
per SASL login. http://www.postfwd.org/
Wietse
Policyd can also do that, check both.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:32:34PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Final warning, you will be dropped from the list (again) if you do
not tone down your responses, or choose to contest this notice.
nice style: i attack you but you are not allowed to respond
You'll be gone soon. You can
li...@rhsoft.net:
nice style: i attack you but you are not allowed to respond
Reindl, enough. You are often the first to respond to a posting,
and unfortunately your tone is detrimental to the climate on this
mailing list. Do not come back. Your style is very easy to recognize.
Wietse
second: read the reply i gave the OP which *was* helpful
Not sure if *you're doing it wrong* was helpful but we put the barracuda front
facing which solved the problem. I tried several body checks but I don't think
that would have help either way. Since the reject requeues the original
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:20:17PM -0600, List wrote:
We would like to use the Cassandra database to persist the state of abusive
IPs which we would block from connecting in one of the
smtpd_xxx_restrictions clauses. We have systems that exist in multiple data
centers and Cassandra works
35 matches
Mail list logo
