We want to get our smarthosts off the backscatterer.org lists,
but still needs to let our users send from addresses not under
our control, so I was thinking of maybe of forcing all users
that wants to send email from not-our-addresses to sasl-authenticate
and hopefully postfix can then set
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:29:28PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I fail to see how controlling your users From: addresses will affect
a backscatterer.org listing.
I'm thinking we can accept sending some backscatter to our own
customers, at least as long as it's authenticated backscatter and we can
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 06:38:15PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
If you have customers sending large amounts of abusive mail, seems
as if there would be better ways to deal with that eg. sender
quotas, monitoring of undeliverable mail, inbound spam/virus
scanning, etc. But I'm not an ISP; I can
I would like to point postfix' virtual_transport at several addresses
for lmtp delivery, and hopefully want postfix to gracefully handle that
any one of them might be down.
virtual_transport = lmtp:loadbalancers.example.com:24
What's the best way of doing that? Will simple rr-dns work:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:16:36AM +0200, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
I would like to point postfix' virtual_transport at several addresses
for lmtp delivery, and hopefully want postfix to gracefully handle that
any one of them might be down.
virtual_transport
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:12:12AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
The server replies with 502 because LMTP uses LHLO, while SMTP uses
HELO or EHLO, and for good reasons: the protocol has different
replies for multi-recipient email.
Doh... I was confused and thought it was connecting to port 25
I'm considering if I should enable opportunistic TLS on our smtp
gateways. Our gateways are known by several DNS names, so I think it
will be difficult to use certificates signed by a reputable CA.
It seems safe enough to enable smtp_tls_security_level=may, but how
do other mailservers behave if
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:44:03AM -0500, k...@rice.edu wrote:
I would think that a SAN cert with all the names of the gateways
listed should work and is available from most reputabble CA's.
Yes, you're right, and then there are cheap wildcard certs too -- but
that adds maintenance. Will need
I'm quite locked to running the distributions version of postfix
(currently 2.6.6), but also would very much to take advantage of
postscreen for turning away zombies. I saw in the postfix-2.7.0
announcement that it would be possible to use postscreen from v2.8
with postfix v2.7, and also the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 07:36:12AM +0200, Jaques Cochet wrote:
I'm working on a mail system design for an ISP that includes hosting
of multiple virtual domains managed by this ISP (300.000 mailbox). HA
and performance are both important concerns for the client, so I have
at least 2 of every
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:59:26AM -0200, Deives Michellis wrote:
Have you guys considered using Perdition to proxy/redirect IMAP/POP to
distribute backend storage to as many as backends as you want?
Yes, but I prefer dovecot (since that's what we're running on the
backend POP/IMAP-servers). It
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:38:05AM -0200, Deives Michellis wrote:
Perdition works WITH dovecot (or whatever imap server you use). It's
just a proxy - will redirect connections based on username, origin,
etc...
Yes, I know, and dovecot director also works with dovecot (or any
other imap server
We just got bitten by a strange problem with our mynetworks-file. In
main.cf we have mynetworks = /etc/postfix/mynetworks, and the
/etc/postfix/mynetworks has been used to both include and exclude
networks for ages... using the format:
BLACKLISTING ###
## Only blocked systems
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:59:02AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Jan-Frode Myklebust:
We just got bitten by a strange problem with our mynetworks-file. In
main.cf we have mynetworks = /etc/postfix/mynetworks, and the
/etc/postfix/mynetworks has been used to both include and exclude
networks
14 matches
Mail list logo
