Arora, Sumit put forth on 9/14/2009 7:51 AM:
Thanks egoitz Ram.
Actually I don't need the whole functionality of Postfix, I also need to cut
the code for my requirement only.
My requirement is to just receive the email and send the body and attachments
to another component.
There is no
Ansgar Wiechers put forth on 9/15/2009 4:28 AM:
Then you can't avoid sending backscatter. Period. RFC 2821 clearly
states:
| If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and
| later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail
| cannot be delivered for some
I'd like to keep copies of all the spam coming into the address mentioned
below. I thought all that I needed was an OK in the access file to force
acceptance of all mail to this address. My attempt at whitelisting the address
is not working. All my anti-spam measures are still whacking spam
K bharathan put forth on 9/15/2009 9:06 AM:
if the relay host has got a username and password how can i specify
these in the main.cf http://main.cf
a google on this showed me the following:
relayhost = smtp.example.com:25 http://smtp.example.com:25
smtp_sasl_auth_enable=yes
Ahhh, is this one of the reasons some folks put 'all' of their restrictions
under smtpd_recipient_restrictions (only have to list things once)?
Thanks Noel.
--
Stan
Noel Jones put forth on 9/15/2009 9:27 AM:
On 9/15/2009 8:58 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'd like to keep copies of all the spam
Martin Allan Jensen put forth on 9/19/2009 8:06 AM:
Hi all,
The company I work for have approximately nine mail servers, including
Postfix, qmail, sendmail and exim.
They would like to make ONE SMTP relay host server so that all their
customers can use their SMTP server to send mail
Hello all,
Is this a problem with uribl.com's MX setup in DNS, or a problem on my
end? Or both? My DNS provider enables wildcard DNS for my domain. I'm
not sure if that is part of this problem, but seems possible. If so,
what can I do, short of switching DNS providers, to prevent this hard
Sven Strickroth put forth on 9/25/2009 7:43 PM:
Hi,
I've a server with multiple ip addresses (all dial-in). But only one
static ip-address. So if the static ip line is down postfix prints out
warning: smtp_connect_addr: bind x.x.x.x: Cannot assign requested
address and uses the other
Sven Strickroth put forth on 9/25/2009 8:49 PM:
Am 26.09.2009 03:40 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
Is it possible to tell postfix not to send mails if the
smtp_bind_address is not available?
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_bind_address
You only pasted the docs here, but my problem isn't
Victor Duchovni put forth on 9/25/2009 9:37 PM:
Why does the address get de-configured? You should be able to bind
it provided the interface is administratively up, even if it is not
working.
Ahh, that's the part I missed. Sounds like his flavor of *nix (and/or a
driver) is automatically
Victor Duchovni put forth on 9/26/2009 1:36 PM:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 05:36:30PM +0200, Sven Strickroth wrote:
Am 26.09.2009 16:18 schrieb Wietse Venema:
OK, so you send out IP packets with your static IP source address
out over the dynamic interface.
no, and there's the problem. if the
Hi all,
Until a day or two ago I'd never seen this in my pflogsumm output:
Messages with no size data
--
03B593DA160 redac...@hardwarefreak.com
0E4283DA160 redac...@hardwarefreak.com
118663DA160 redac...@hardwarefreak.com
1D5973DA160 redac...@hardwarefreak.com
Wietse Venema put forth on 9/27/2009 7:39 AM:
If you have a question about POSTFIX logs, then it is a good idea
to send samples of POSTFIX logging.
Wietse
Point taken, sry Wietse. Upon grabbing these sample entries, I noticed
the transactions pflogsumm is flagging have no qmgr
Wietse Venema put forth on 9/27/2009 8:30 AM:
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 9/27/2009 7:39 AM:
If you have a question about POSTFIX logs, then it is a good idea
to send samples of POSTFIX logging.
Point taken, sry Wietse. Upon grabbing these sample entries, I noticed
Wietse Venema put forth on 9/28/2009 5:26 AM:
If the chroot environment does not contain the required syslog socket,
then why does qmgr place a stamp in the log for some message
transactions and not others?
Oh, ye of little faith.
Ye of not enough understanding of the subject (me) is more
Michel Bulgado put forth on 9/29/2009 9:22 AM:
I have implemented in my external mail servers several mechanisms to
stop spammers, I am using postgrey + policy-weight and blacklists such
as Spamhaus (Zen) in addition
smtpd_helo_restrictions. with this slows down the spam, but I keep
getting
mic...@casa.co.cu put forth on 9/29/2009 11:05 PM:
Hello again
I've been tested per second eliminating the MailScanner checks and
guess, the problems persist then the problem is not in the MailScanner
as we thought.
You were told, by multiple people, that the problem was sendmail, not
Jakob Lenfers put forth on 9/30/2009 3:19 AM:
Patrick Ben Koetter schrieb:
* Jakob Lenfers lenf...@bigsss-bremen.de:
server_host = ldap://134.102.131.4
server_host = 134.102.131.4
I'm no expert on Postfix LDAP, but I found this interesting, and
possibly related to your issue, specifically
Jakob Lenfers put forth on 9/30/2009 5:43 AM:
Stan Hoeppner schrieb:
I'm no expert on Postfix LDAP, but I found this interesting, and
possibly related to your issue, specifically in the last sentence of the
paragraph below.
ldapsource_server_host
http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html
Jakob Lenfers put forth on 9/30/2009 10:00 AM:
Stan Hoeppner schrieb:
Jakob Lenfers put forth on 9/30/2009 5:43 AM:
Stan Hoeppner schrieb:
ldapsource_server_host
http://www.postfix.org/ldap_table.5.html
That helped in some way, thanks... I put the statements into the main.cf
as described
Wietse Venema put forth on 10/1/2009 12:34 PM:
The REAL mistake in your setup is that you forward SPAM into gmail.
This causes gmail to treat your machine as a SPAMMER, and may affect
legitimate mail that you do want to receive.
110% correct.
You must NEVER bounce SPAM to the sender
Ricky Tompu Breaky put forth on 10/1/2009 2:54 PM:
Let me dip my concentration in the documentation and information I get
from this mailing list.
Dip into one or more of these as well:
http://www.fredshack.com/docs/postfix.html
Brian Evans - Postfix List put forth on 10/1/2009 3:03 PM:
Kevin Gagel wrote:
Now I get these errors:
Oct 1 12:54:59 gateway postfix/smtpd[14635]: warning: connect to
127.0.0.1:12524: Connection refused
Oct 1 12:54:59 gateway postfix/smtpd[14635]: warning: problem talking
to server
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/1/2009 11:47 AM:
My understanding of client and sender are these:
Client: An application used to send, receive e-mail messages.
In the context of Postfix client restrictions, the _client_ is the
remote SMTP server that is sending email to your Postfix server. It is
Hi all,
I just had a viagra spam from gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu
(gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu [79.122.36.230] sneak past both of my pcre
checks which should have killed it. Until today they've been working
flawlessly, or so I believe, and I have ample log entries showing
they've been working.
Charles Marcus put forth on 10/2/2009 10:19 AM:
On 10/2/2009 11:11 AM, David Southwell wrote:
How do I set an unlimited outgoing email attachment size?
thanks in advance
david
message_size_limit =
### is in bytes
This affects all messages though - if you need different
Noel Jones put forth on 10/2/2009 10:54 AM:
On 10/2/2009 10:05 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Hi all,
I just had a viagra spam from gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu
(gprs4f7a24e6.pool.t-umts.hu [79.122.36.230] sneak past both of my pcre
checks which should have killed it. Until today they've been
Noel Jones put forth on 10/2/2009 12:00 PM:
Was the mail addressed to postmaster? The postmaster address gets a
free ride in some versions of postfix.
No, it wasn't addressed to Postmaster, but I wish you'd have said this
before I made a fool of myself, because your suggestion here jolted my
gc put forth on 10/2/2009 10:32 PM:
ok so I am trying out this relay to another server via :
http://www.howtoforge.com/postfix_relaying_through_another_mailserver
but when I enter the first line of code: postconf -e 'relayhost =
smtp.example.com'
the return I get, not a new line, but:
Laszlo Kupor put forth on 10/3/2009 5:16 AM:
Hello!
I migrate a Sendmail system to Postfix, but i have
incompatibility/performance problem. The Sendmail catch envelope rcpt
to: recipients and if relay is applicable sends mail to rcpt to:
addresses email domain part MX mail server. If all
mouss put forth on 10/3/2009 8:32 AM:
instead of relying on To, use recipient delimiter to route the tapped
mail to say stan+s...@..., then have TB use the Delivered-To header that
is added by postfix. of course, you can do this at delivery time (sieve
if dovecot, maildrop rules if courier,
Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/4/2009 5:28 PM:
I appreciate the adherence to Firewalling 101 (something you have
preached before on security-basics), but common sense and practical
issues might impel one to make an exception and allow port 25 *only*
from Outside Postfix - Inside Postfix.
Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 7:17 PM:
Are there any new features to postfix 2.6.x that would cause it to be slow?
Other than the obvious suspects; stress adaptive behavior, logging,
ulimit (running out of file descriptors).
We are a very high volume site, we use postfix only as a
Dave Täht put forth on 10/6/2009 10:02 AM:
d...@teklibre.org (Dave Täht) writes:
One unanswered question from this series of emails:
Dave Taht:
Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
*sending* mail on different protocols?
The simplest version would
Rich Shepard put forth on 10/6/2009 4:38 PM:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
I want to examine delivered messages that contain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 in the header.
Basically that would be all messages...
Ralf,
I asked locally about that because much of the
Rich Shepard put forth on 10/7/2009 1:38 PM:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, LuKreme wrote:
Looking at my mail spool almost ALL mail is either 7bit, 8bit, or
quoted-printable.
That's what I've seen here, too.
Regardless, when I put those base64 messages on hold and looked at them
this morning,
Charles Marcus put forth on 10/7/2009 1:32 PM:
You can fix this by setting relayhost = [smtp.myisp.com]
If they're blocking outbound TCP 25 from his CPE, how is changing from a
dotted decimal address in relayhost to an fqdn going to help? _It won't_.
What he's going to need to do is one (or
Dave Täht put forth on 10/7/2009 2:40 PM:
I imagine you all were big fans of NETBUI and IPX/SPX too.
That's a bit like comparing a German Shepherd and a Poodle to a Pig and
a Giraffe. IPv4/IPv6 share the same architecture (same species) and
base protocol, but use different addressing. IPv6
Wietse Venema put forth on 10/8/2009 1:51 PM:
Postfix snapshot 20091008 includes an updated version of the
postscreen daemon. This means it is no longer limited to the
non-production releases.
Does postscreen run one process per connection, allowing balanced
scheduling across cpus/cores, or is
Nick Lunt put forth on 10/9/2009 3:03 AM:
postfix-2.2.10-1.2.1.el4_7
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 5)
2.6.9-42.ELsmp
Sorry, I don't have your answer. I'm sure someone else will get you
going. However, may I humbly suggest you consider upgrading? The
version of
for sending e-mail through your ISP. The log below shows your
posting's first step on its way to the mailing list, seems like
smtp.webfaction.com is indeed the correct SMTP server.
I spoon fed him the complete answer a few days ago. He adopted the :587
but then ignored my SASL instructions:
Stan
Owen Townsend put forth on 10/9/2009 4:14 PM:
Note - somebody on postfix user list said I might need SASL library
- BUT I can't find a recent rpm for my RHEL 5 x86_64 ?
I found cyrus-sasl-2.1.1.19-14.x86_64.rpm but hesitant to try it ?
Hope you can help me with this problem
Dangit, I'm
Barney Desmond put forth on 10/10/2009 12:19 AM:
Mask private information if you must, but keep
in mind that it can make it harder for others to help diagnose
problems.
Absolutely correct. Obfuscate left-hand-side only to prevent valid
addresses being scraped from this public mailing list by
Manish Kathuria put forth on 10/10/2009 1:19 AM:
That's a great tip. This would serve the purpose as far as the text
messages go. However the mail administrator is more interested in having
a look at the attachments being sent with the mail which would appear
encoded in the queues. Is there
Victoriano Giralt put forth on 10/10/2009 2:48 AM:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
| Go ahead and give that RPM a go, see if it works. If not we'll search
| for another version of libsasl that will work. You might need libsasl2
| instead.
If the OP needs SASL just for SMTP-auth in Postfix, I'd suggest
Owen Townsend put forth on 10/11/2009 6:28 PM:
I had some problems thanks to Stan Hoeppner who told me about SASL.
You're welcome.
4. mail o...@uvsoftware.ca -- send test mail to be read from ISP by
Thunderbird
Send a test to another mailbox, say a gmail or hotmail test account.
Don't stop
MySQL Student put forth on 10/11/2009 11:53 PM:
I appreciate your comments about obfuscation. Hopefully I haven't
mangled the info too much. My log is more than just a few lines.
Perhaps I have the logging level turned up too high. Isn't there a way
to include more detailed logging directly
Wietse Venema put forth on 9/28/2009 7:56 AM:
The problem is using a chroot environment without syslog socket.
Now PLEASE go beat up the maintainers who ship Postfix in a broken
configuration. The more people compolain, the more likely that it
will get fixed,
I will surely do so. Is there
Martijn de Munnik put forth on 10/19/2009 6:59 AM:
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 13:50 +0200, Martin Schiøtz wrote:
Hi
I'm configuring a simple postfix smtp-server that is only used for
outgoing emails for lots of users.
I want to do some simple spam checking with postfix. I was thinking of:
rbl
Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/20/2009 8:57 PM:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Michael Jean wrote:
smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes
smtpd != smtp; you never enabled SASL for the smtp *client*. Review the
SASL_README, specifically the client section to which you have already
been referred.
Victor Duchovni put forth on 10/6/2009 11:37 AM:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:17:54PM -0700, Eric Vaughn wrote:
Are there any new features to postfix 2.6.x that would cause it to be
slow?
Eric your post premature. You don't yet have measurements showing Postfix
2.6 to be slow. Lets get the
zch.open put forth on 10/21/2009 1:01 AM:
Hi everybody!
I'm a new user of postfix. Now I have a problem about talking to gmail.
Maybe you should start by telling us exactly what it is you want to
do/accomplish with Postfix, on Debian, inside your small company, from a
dynamic IP address.
zch.open put forth on 10/21/2009 1:45 AM:
Thank you for your quick reply, stan!
I think I failed to express my thought -_-!
What I'm going to accomplish is to build a mail server in my Intranet
using postfix. And I hope this mail server can talk to gmail or other
e-mail server on the
Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 8:23 PM:
OLD NEW
Centos 5.0. Centos 5.3 (yum update all)
i386. x64
2.4 ghrz cpu. 2.83 ghrz cpu
Hi Eric,
Would you please provide the following:
1. Each server make/model#
2. CPU
K bharathan put forth on 10/21/2009 12:08 PM:
hi all
i've to keep two postfix mail server; one at head office and another at
regional office;
both users will be using example.com http://example.com domain; head
office mail server has got hostname/ mx/rdns etc..in the public dns;
head office
Arora, Sumit put forth on 10/22/2009 5:49 AM:
I was wondering if I can accept only those emails addressed to the users
listed in a table of my application database.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_recipient_restrictions
--
Stan
Sharma, Ashish put forth on 10/22/2009 7:53 AM:
Hello,
I have setup a Postfix mail server for incoming mails that is required
to never reply to external enviornment i.e it will accept all incoming
mails and never reply anything that can be used as a trace to locate and
verify it's
Victor Duchovni put forth on 10/22/2009 10:20 AM:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:15:56AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 8:23 PM:
OLD NEW
Centos 5.0. Centos 5.3 (yum update all)
i386. x64
2.4 ghrz cpu
Victor Duchovni put forth on 10/22/2009 11:41 AM:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:18:12AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
There is really no need to pursue this at this time. No evidence has
yet been found to support the new system being slower than the old.
I think you've demonstrated it's
Wietse Venema put forth on 10/22/2009 12:04 PM:
Stan Hoeppner:
I think you've demonstrated it's not slower. I'm wondering why it's not
faster, vs what you described as about equal, in performance. Granted,
More than 25 years ago people discovered that it is incredibly hard
to spread one
Wietse Venema put forth on 10/22/2009 4:25 PM:
Stan Hoeppner:
running at 1/4 speed (I'm only getting 3MB/sec whereas with the
[...] kernel they are getting 14-18MB/sec)
I hope you have those numbers mixed up, and that you meant to write
45MB/s with a good driver and 15MB/s with a bad one
Dan Schaefer put forth on 10/27/2009 9:51 AM:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Try without SeLinux, AppArmor, and other security add-ons.
They are not covered by the Postfix warranty.
Wietse
Postfix has a warranty? :) It's a free product...
Yes, even Wietse has a sense of humor, though it's so
Wietse Venema put forth on 10/28/2009 5:46 AM:
You don't need multiple network cards. You simply need a box with
multiple network addresses.
For example, on Debian 5.0 (likely similar on other *nix distros) you
could do something like this:
/etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet
Dennis Putnam put forth on 10/28/2009 10:53 AM:
Yes. However, that is the version Apple provides with OS X 10.4. OS X
10.6, which has the latest version of Postfix, will not run on PPC
servers so we are in the process of acquiring Intel servers (dictated by
budget issues beyond my control).
Paul Beard put forth on 10/28/2009 11:48 AM:
On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Debian GNU/Linux isn't OSX (it's better). Dunno if this is a
possibility for you, but it is an option if you want to keep that PPC
hardware humming away with fully up
Rene Bartsch put forth on 10/29/2009 7:24 AM:
It's a Linux-VServer with Ubuntu 9.04. The package is
postfix_2.5.5-1.1_amd64.deb. Additionally
the postfix-mysql package is installed for domains and aliases.
It looks like something in your OS config is causing an additional ~2MB
to be
Russ Lavoy put forth on 10/29/2009 12:39 PM:
Hello,
I have a question...
I got a request that they want email coming from usera to userb to be BCC'ed
to userc.
I am not sure how to go about that I know how to direct email from a specific
user to another specific user, but not BCC
Markus Schönhaber put forth on 10/30/2009 10:05 AM:
Simon Morvan:
I notice that event if the recipient address doesn't exists, the
check_policy_service (greylist) got evaluated, causing higher load than
needed. Isn't reject_unauth_destination there to block inexistent
recipients ?
No,
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 10/30/2009 2:23 PM:
I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
needs to implement depends on whether one uses local deliver?
Should have proofread that... I meant I do not have
reject_unlisted_recipient defined. However, the docs say it's
Simon Morvan put forth on 10/30/2009 10:39 AM:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The Policy behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Would you please elaborate a bit on this? Most of the listings in PBL
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
this association.
Organization and ease of management for one. For example:
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access
Noel Jones put forth on 10/30/2009 11:50 PM:
On 10/30/2009 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
this association.
Organization and ease of management for one. For example
Noel Jones put forth on 10/31/2009 1:12 AM:
Each lookup table requires overhead. 30 separate tables requires
considerably more overhead than one table. The size of the dataset
doesn't change, it's the overhead that gets smaller. The more
concurrent smtpd processes running, the more it
mouss put forth on 10/31/2009 11:06 AM:
mouss, you rock.
you can use a script if you prefer. the advantage of 'make' is that it
only re-generates files when needed (source change).
The only likely changes would be adding another country. In this case,
would I just add the file name to the
Simon Morvan put forth on 10/31/2009 12:30 PM:
And why shouldn't be able to use my own mail server behind my private
residential ADSL line ?
You should be able to. Here's how to implement the outbound mail
portion to prevent mass rejections:
Simon Morvan put forth on 11/1/2009 4:20 AM:
That's prevent rejection but also prevent my ability to ensure my
freedom to use the network :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
That's will be my last message on-list for this topic but feel free to
keep on discuss this off-list
Anyone have a filter they'd like to share that rejects mail at smtp
based on known malicious attachment file types? I've been out of the
game for a while in this regard. Received a spam today (that squeaked
past all my current filters) with a .docx file attached, and I don't
even know what that
Sharma, Ashish put forth on 11/3/2009 3:58 AM:
Hello,
I have a Postfix e-mail receiving server setup.
I have applied the following setting in my Postfix main.cf file:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_rbl_client sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org,
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 11/3/2009 8:32 AM:
* Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
Anyone have a filter they'd like to share that rejects mail at smtp
based on known malicious attachment file types?
Of course .)
mime_header_checks:
/name=\(.*)\.(386|bat|chm|cpl|cmd|com|do|exe
Dan Schaefer put forth on 11/4/2009 2:06 PM:
What setting(s) in Postfix, if any, need to be changed in order for the
sending of the email to be successful?
Please paste the entire transaction. You're not showing a rejection or
a queued delivery in your log snippet. One example of each, for
Dan Schaefer put forth on 11/4/2009 2:18 PM:
The OP was all I had in the log for that transaction.
If that's truly the case then your Postfix is horribly broken. Every
inbound message must/will either be rejected by smtpd, or accepted and
queued for delivery, or deferred by, qmgr. There
devel anaconda put forth on 11/5/2009 5:19 PM:
Hello everybody!
I have a high-performance server (dual quad-core Xeon 2.8Ghz + 16GB RAM +
2SCSI disks 140Gb), RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.4, software RAID1 + Postfix
2.5.9.
This server serves only smtp traffic. The only thing postfix should do
devel anaconda put forth on 11/6/2009 12:18 AM:
This is an 1U PowerEdge server with 4 slots for SCSI disks
Ouch, 4 disks is very limiting. Given that the spool files are
temporary in nature, your best option short of purchasing a new server
or an external SCSI array enclosure, is to add two
Seth Mattinen put forth on 11/7/2009 3:18 AM:
devel anaconda wrote:
It disables fsync() on each incoming mail. Plus, if I mount my ext3
partition with option commit=30 or even commit=100, can it helps a bit?
Have you tried a filesystem other than ext3 like Reiser or XFS? The
performance
devel anaconda put forth on 11/8/2009 11:16 AM:
06.11.09, 02:32, Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
You are not going to succeed without more spindles and likely more CPUs.
Just launching a Perl hello-world script takes 10ms on a fast machine,
do that 100 times a second and
Marc Silver put forth on 11/10/2009 2:23 AM:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:03:56 +0200, Jack Knowlton jknowl...@vp44.com
wrote:
Is it possible to have a transport map with a regular expression? What I
want is to use an external relay server for all the emails to be
delivered
on Yahoo domains
Angus March put forth on 11/10/2009 12:22 PM:
The Postfix I'm using is the rpm that comes with SLE 10:
postfix-2.2.9-10.23. If what you say is correct, then this sendmail
operation is buggy.
Probably unrelated to your current issue, but you should consider
upgrading your Postfix to at least
Chris Arnold put forth on 11/10/2009 6:47 PM:
OK, I have gotten access to the mail server and have downloaded
pflogsumm.pl. I have followed the readme and chown and chmod. Did not
copy the man page. Run perl pflogsumm.pl and nothing happens; it just
sits there. I untar’ed the gz file that was
Chris Arnold put forth on 11/10/2009 7:21 PM:
Don't want to post the whole pflogsumm file as 1 it is very long and 2 there
are somethings that don't need to be shared on a mailinglist :)
What are some things I should be looking for in the pflogsumm.pl report?
You should be concentrating your
Chris Arnold put forth on 11/10/2009 7:56 PM:
On 11/10/09 8:36 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Chris Arnold put forth on 11/10/2009 7:21 PM:
Don't want to post the whole pflogsumm file as 1 it is very long and 2 there
are somethings that don't need to be shared
/dev/rob0 put forth on 11/10/2009 7:58 PM:
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 19:21:04 Chris Arnold wrote:
OK, nothing stands out from pflogsumm.pl:
Nothing?
Per-Day Traffic Summary
date received delivered deferredbounced rejected
When I run these through postmap -q I a get a REJECT return. When I
add a fourth octect to the postmap -q input, I get nothing. I've been
beating me head on the desk whilst re-reading man 5 access, and I can't
figure out why real addresses matching these class C subnets aren't
returning REJECT
Noel Jones put forth on 11/11/2009 10:16 PM:
But commas do make it prettier to look at.
Pfft. I removed all my commas recently to improve aesthetics. Now
you're telling me I have to put 'em back in? Sheesh. :P
--
Stan
Alex put forth on 11/12/2009 10:09 PM:
Perhaps the reject_invalid_helo_hostname doesn't work with postfix-v1?
Postfix 1.1 was released sometime around Jan 2002. Patch 1.1.13, the
last patch for Postfix 1.1, was released July 2003. So, you're
running 6-7 year old code _at best_, there Alex.
Sharma, Ashish put forth on 11/16/2009 6:23 AM:
How were you able to identify that a particular IP/IP's are the source of
spam attack on your mail server?
A trap and a Mark I eyeball, Senderbase reputation data, examining rDNS
within a netblock, etc.
After identifying that a particular
Jim Lang put forth on 11/16/2009 2:00 PM:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Lang:
OK here is the scenario.
Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged address
vic...@randomdomain.com
If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, not a problem, if
the address is invalid,
cont...@rusanu.com put forth on 11/18/2009 10:05 AM:
Thanks Andreas,
The reject would be '553 Mail from ... not allowed', so it sounds like a
dead end trying to configure postfix to handle this.
Suggestions on how to workaround are welcome.
Given that the Amazon cloud is likely universally
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/18/2009 9:25 AM:
Dhiraj Chatpar:
Yes the DNS is a good idea..
However what will i achieve if i implement the following?
The solution is to have multiple MX records in the DNS.
All standards-compliant MTAs will spread the load WITHOUT
ANY SENDER SIDE
Michel Bulgado put forth on 11/18/2009 8:54 AM:
Hello
I created an alias with the email address of all users in my workplace
to let them get notifications or possible changes in the system through
email.
Would like to limit the shipment from certain recipients, and if
possible when you
K bharathan put forth on 11/18/2009 1:36 PM:
-is anything wrong with my settings?!
help appreciated
Try:
grep warning: /the/maillog/file
--
Stan
1 - 100 of 1223 matches
Mail list logo
