Am 27.01.2015 um 11:13 schrieb saulos:
Hi, I'm new to Postfix.
I installed on Ubuntu server 14.04 Postfix,mysql,dovecot following
instruction on various sites, all test they suggest seems to be OK but when
I try to send email I get this error:
connect from
Am 26.01.2015 um 20:06 schrieb L. D. James:
I'm familiar how to use aliases to send email addressed to specific
email address to a specific user. Can someone advise me of a feature to
reroute (send) email from specific email address to a specific user?
For instance:
From email address|
Am 23.01.2015 um 17:23 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 08:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Never assume malice when limited resources get in the way of keeping
Postfix documentation up to date.
Interesting reply from someone who regularly spews venom at people and can't
Am 23.01.2015 um 15:23 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 06:16 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
We have had to whitelist some of our larger clients because of this
very issue. We had one case where the same message was retried from
at least five different IPs apparently because
Am 22.01.2015 um 12:13 schrieb Joe Acquisto-j4:
On 1/21/2015 at 10:37 PM, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:08:19PM -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
This appeared to work fine and does, for most messages. However,
our org often sends an email to
Am 22.01.2015 um 00:35 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 21. jan. 2015 16.06.01 Robert Schetterer r...@sys4.de wrote:
Reject_Not_Pass_Domains = aol.com,hotmail.com
thx Scott taking care of mail stuff in ubuntu
so it is limithed ?, well i think it works on windows aswell if python
is
Am 20.01.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Rosenbaum, Larry M.:
What would be the best method for (temporarily) blocking all mail from a
particular (internal) IP? Or alternatively, blocking all mail with a
particular “MAIL FROM” address?
For instance, blocking all mail from 1.2.3.4, or alternatively, from
Am 20.01.2015 um 23:18 schrieb Ansgar Wiechers:
On 2015-01-20 li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 20.01.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Rosenbaum, Larry M.:
What would be the best method for (temporarily) blocking all mail from a
particular (internal) IP? Or alternatively, blocking all mail with a
particular
Am 21.01.2015 um 04:20 schrieb rupesh chandurkar:
I have issue with deferred mail for the domain doesn't have point MX
record. I am set maximal_queue_lifetime = 18h. When queue life time
expire all mail's are bounce back to the sender.I want to this mail
bounce back to the sender in first
Am 19.01.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Per Thorsheim:
Viktor;
Thomas Ptacek doesn't like DNSSEC
http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/ followup
http://sockpuppet.org/stuff/dnssec-qa.html, and ImperialViolet has some
opinions as well
Am 19.01.2015 um 11:49 schrieb Michael Ströder:
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
and the header is still there.
By default, Postfix REMOVES Return-Path headers from email messages.
The default setting is:
message_drop_headers = bcc, content-length,
Am 19.01.2015 um 21:12 schrieb Michael Fox:
I have a question about the situation where postfix receives a
connection from a client trying to send to an invalid recipient address
such as u...@nohow.noway.org.
Currently, postfix responds with:
450 4.1.2 u...@nohow.noway.org: Recipient address
Am 18.01.2015 um 12:01 schrieb SW:
I have an SPF record created in DNS for my domain. In my main.cf config file
for Postfix I have the following SPF settings:
spf_received_header = yes
spf_mark_only = no
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = peject_spf_invalid_sender,
Am 18.01.2015 um 12:28 schrieb SW:
Am 18.01.2015 um 12:01 schrieb SW:
I have an SPF record created in DNS for my domain. In my main.cf config
file
for Postfix I have the following SPF settings:
spf_received_header = yes
spf_mark_only = no
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
Am 18.01.2015 um 06:14 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:02:24AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
better make a bugreport at your distribution
https://www.google.at/search?q=postfix+debian+chroot+problems
Assuming this is Debian, there's no bug report needed. It's an
Am 18.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb m...@ruggedinbox.com:
At the end of the /etc/postfix/master.cf file (Debian Wheezy)
we have a nice custom PHP script which checks and limits outgoing emails:
outCustomFilter unix - n n - - pipe
flags=F user=vmail:vmail argv=/etc/postfix/outCustomFilter.php
Am 18.01.2015 um 00:00 schrieb Eugene R:
-Original Message- From: li...@rhsoft.net
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 7:29 AM
Actually the set I have is surprisingly effective and also surprisingly
good in keeping FPs low -- much, much better than anything I saw
from SA
and DSPAM
Am 18.01.2015 um 05:40 schrieb James Lockie:
On 01/17/15 22:55, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:51:30PM -0500, James Lockie wrote:
/var/log/mail.log
postfix/smtpd[1519]: warning: SASL: Connect to /var/spool/postfix/private/auth
failed: No such file or directory
Am 16.01.2015 um 10:26 schrieb M. Fioretti:
I have just inherited a postfix 2.6.6 server running on a Centos 6
server, whose postconf -n output is pasted below.
Everything seems fine to me (but of course any pointer to security
holes, or possibilities for improvement is welcome!) except one
Am 16.01.2015 um 15:33 schrieb Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
FreeBSD:
# mkdir -p /var/spool/postfix/var/run
# syslogd -l /var/spool/postfix/var/run/log
Linux, OpenBSD:
# mkdir -p /var/spool/postfix/dev
# syslogd -a /var/spool/postfix/dev/log
Except that on some
Am 16.01.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Eugene R:
If you're rejecting good mail more than rarely, you should
reevaluate your restrictions.
In particular, most built-in HELO checks are likely to reject legit
mail, and not terribly effective against current spam bots. The
reject_unknown_client is also
Am 15.01.2015 um 17:27 schrieb Alex Regan:
I'm using postfix-2.10.5 on fedora20 with amavisd-new and spamassassin,
as well as greylisting, and would like to create a spam honeypot.
The problem is that postfix is configured on my system with zen,
postscreen, and other methods to block spam
Am 15.01.2015 um 01:20 schrieb Mullis, Josh (CCI-Atlanta):
Is there a way to configure postfix to remove old mail when the mailbox
size limit is reached instead of new mail being rejected?
The basic need is limiting the amount of disk space mailbox files are
using without rejecting mail
Am 12.01.2015 um 16:09 schrieb Wietse Venema:
the...@otpme.org:
Hi list,
if you run postmap on an alias file by mistake it prints a warning but
still overwrites the .db file which is then unusable.
Is there any reason why postmap overwrites the .db although it detects
that the source file is
Am 12.01.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
what about
* open a temporary new file for step 1
* if the operations fails just delete it
* if the operation suceeds move it to the final location
What about databases that require TWO files? There is no
atomic operation
Am 12.01.2015 um 17:04 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 04:57:37PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
create TWO temp files and decide at the end if they both are should be moved
or deleted? i don't get why you care in that context about atmoic move of
two files - two non-atomic
Am 12.01.2015 um 17:42 schrieb James B. Byrne:
On Mon, January 12, 2015 07:15, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Today, amost 3% of DANE SMTP enabled domains either fail to validate
or publish unsupported TLSA records[1]. This fraction would have been
even higher without an effort to notify problem
Am 07.01.2015 um 22:38 schrieb James B. Byrne:
On Wed, January 7, 2015 16:29, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Hi
are there some data which value is acceptable for
postscreen_greet_wait to not end in legit SMTP servers give up and
try again later?
Klensin Standards Track
Am 07.01.2015 um 22:46 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Hi
are there some data which value is acceptable for
postscreen_greet_wait to not end in legit SMTP servers give up and try
again later?
I would not recommend more than the 6-second default. Legitimate
mailing lists may
Hi
are there some data which value is acceptable for
postscreen_greet_wait to not end in legit SMTP servers give up and try
again later?
we see a massive botnet starting with around Dec/27 and daily deliveriy
attempts rasied from 5000 to 5 - previously i had 10 seconds and 3
in case of
Am 06.01.2015 um 22:52 schrieb James B. Byrne:
On Tue, January 6, 2015 15:08, Roman Gelfand wrote:
I do run dns server on both client machines.
The dig response of the client machine from the client machine that
connects immediately has one more entry. It is bringing back an A
record of the
Am 05.01.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:01:03PM +0100, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
With RC4-SHA early enough for the 11-year old Microsoft Exchange
servers.
Sadly, older Exchange servers (2003 at least) will favour 3DES over RC4
for TLS connections, IIRC.
Am 05.01.2015 um 19:43 schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:18, Viktor Dukhovni postfix-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:59:06PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
No, this is a bad idea, it is in fact 3DES that is broken with such servers
Shouldn't we start
Am 05.01.2015 um 20:23 schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:51, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Gmail's outbound servers prefers RC4-SHA if offered by the SMTP
server, when Gmail drops RC4 support, these domains will finally
feel real pressure to either disable or fix their TLS stack
Am 04.01.2015 um 18:11 schrieb m.dvo...@annkar.cz:
I would like to ask you if someone tried and solved requirement to
configure sendmail command to send email via specific SMTP port.
I mean :
use sendmail to send email via 127.0.0.1 but port e.g 2 where are
different settings (e.g.
://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/phpmailer/downloads/list
On 4. 1. 2015 18:07, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 04.01.2015 um 18:11 schrieb m.dvo...@annkar.cz:
I would like to ask you if someone tried and solved requirement to
configure sendmail command to send email via specific SMTP port.
I mean
On 4. 1. 2015 18:30, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 04.01.2015 um 18:18 schrieb m.dvo...@annkar.cz:
I have a script where sendmail command is used BUT I need to specify to
via SMTP server (espec. port) will sendmail send email.
again: sendmail don't use a smtp server at all - period
if you need
Am 05.01.2015 um 00:43 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
Reading Postfix's docs re
Disconnect suspicious SMTP clients
http://www.postfix.org/STRESS_README.html#hangup
in the example there it says
To hang up connections from blacklisted zombies, you can set specific Postfix
SMTP server
Am 02.01.2015 um 17:41 schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von wie...@porcupine.org:
Jeffrey 'jf' Lim:
As per subject.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_long_queue_ids says:
For safety reasons the vowels (AEIOUaeiou) are excluded from the
alphabet. In what way are vowels unsafe?
Am 02.01.2015 um 10:03 schrieb ERICK VAN ZYL:
Happy new year to all!
Currently, I coding as applcation that would veryfied if a mail was
attended (Like read and assigned to a particular agent). My question,
how can I get a message ID? Is that each message has an ID?
sadly no - SpamAssassin
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/193458
is it intentional that header_checks intended to remove pre-existing
X-Envelope-From and X-Envelope-To also removes the own by access maps
prepended (looks also to be the case for policyd-headers like Received-SPF)
from *my* personal
Am 31.12.2014 um 16:07 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
This email is getting rejected.
Dec 31 05:26:04 mailserver postfix/smtpd[776]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[68.232.198.34]: 450
4.1.8 bounce-3984645_html-947564785-97845647-8946574...@bounce.email.ivyexec.com: Sender
address
Am 31.12.2014 um 16:28 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014, at 07:15 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
rogt3...@proinbox.com:
This email is getting rejected.
Dec 31 05:26:04 mailserver postfix/smtpd[776]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[68.232.198.34]: 450
4.1.8
Am 31.12.2014 um 16:38 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014, at 07:35 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
rogt3...@proinbox.com:
Try turning off chroot operation in master.cf
I guess I don't understand what chroot has to do with this one
domain when everything else is working fine.
you don't want reject_unknown_recipient_domain for submissions because
a MUA can't handle a 4xx reject and the same for
reject_unknown_sender_domain
smtpd_sender_restrictions is not needed at all if you enforce auth and
reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch
for a submission-only server
Am 31.12.2014 um 01:00 schrieb Tomas Carnecky:
I was trying to install postfix into an VM image which used an
auto-generated hostname. It happened that the hostname was fully numeric
(7593408), and the post-install script failed to execute properly.
Here's an excerpt from the install log:
Am 31.12.2014 um 05:58 schrieb Thom Miller:
On 12/30/2014 09:35 PM, Jonathan Hermann wrote:
Ok, then it's by design. So spamassassin/amavis will have to do.
don't get me wrong but re-consider setup a complex, public reachable
mailserver without have *basic* understanding how email works at
Am 29.12.2014 um 17:25 schrieb Istvan Prosinger:
I'm trying to send a test mail to my postscreened server, and postscreen
should naturally rejct it for the first time. My problem is that it
seems to be rejecting the mail forever even if it's comming from the
same IP adress
Dec 29 17:22:09
Am 28.12.2014 um 21:31 schrieb Jonathan Hermann:
would like to enforce
authentication to prevent spam
incoming or outgoing?
* outgoing: see blow
* incoming: setup a contentfilter and other
rules for mail without SASL auth
But at the same time, I need to be able
to receive mail from
Hi
am i right that with the settings below refresh_time is implicit
disabled without side-effects? i don't want pro-active
sender-verification refresh while i can live with the once per 24h
pseudo greylisting in case of rcpt-verification
address_verify_positive_expire_time = 24h
Am 27.12.2014 um 14:37 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
am i right that with the settings below refresh_time is implicit
disabled without side-effects? i don't want pro-active
sender-verification refresh while i can live with the once per 24h
pseudo greylisting in case of rcpt
Am 27.12.2014 um 16:33 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
for negative in case of sender-verification and flooded forged addresses
not so because it means asking the not involved server (gmail and so on)
again even if no future attempt with that sender happens
You don't understand how
make them hate you by more aggresive RBL scoring and *slow down them* as
well as consider a manual trained global bayes with at least 1000 ham
and 1000 spam messages
* find common tags in the maillog
* adjust scores in SA local.cf for them
* adjust the scores for bayes after it si well trained
URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_REDIR 0.3
score URIBL_BLOCKED 0
score URIBL_DBL_ERROR 0
score URI_PHISH 3.5
score URI_TRY_3LD 0.5
score URI_WP_HACKED 3.5
Am 26.12.2014 um 03:15 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
make them hate you by more aggresive RBL scoring and *slow down them* as
well as consider a manual trained global bayes
Hi
why does postfix the sender verification in case of a non existing local
rcpt instead skip that expensive callout and just reject?
given that postscreen and other restrictions killing 95% of all junk
before but my intention is to have the sender callout as last resort
before the very
Am 24.12.2014 um 22:01 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
why does postfix the sender verification in case of a non existing local
rcpt instead skip that expensive callout and just reject?
Put reject_unlisted_{sender,recipient} before
reject_unverified_{sender,recipient}.
ah - thanks
Am 24.12.2014 um 22:14 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
smtpd_relay_restrictions =
reject_unauth_destination
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/skip_rcpt_vrfy.cf
reject_unlisted_recipient
reject_unverified_recipient
smtpd_relay_restrictions happens before
Am 23.12.2014 um 14:23 schrieb Tomas Macek:
I believe the right cfg place is smtpd_recipient_restrictions where I
have this:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
check_recipient_access
Questions:
---
1) is the
Am 23.12.2014 um 15:03 schrieb Tomas Macek:
Tomas Macek:
Hello, I'm trying to prevent my testing postfix installation 2.8.4 from
being
abused by emails that will go to the root@localhost email address.
I found out that it receives these messages accindetally, when I
tested my configuration.
Am 23.12.2014 um 16:06 schrieb Stephen Ingram:
I'm trying to move from a CentOS 6.x server that uses Postfix 2.6.6 to a
CentOS 7 server that uses version 2.10.1. I'm running the same
configuration that works on the old setup, however, Postfix won't
deliver the message (via LMTP) and instead
Am 23.12.2014 um 14:32 schrieb James B. Byrne:
We have an smtpd_helo_restriction of reject_unknown_helo_hostname that
regularly fails for one of our (very) large correspondents.
you can't use this seriously beause of too many people not able or
willing to setup their basic prerequisites for
Am 24.12.2014 um 02:32 schrieb steve zeng:
I put the following debug and command_filter in main.cf:
smtpd_command_filter = pcre:/etc/postfix/command_filter
notify_classes = resource, software, protocol, policy
/etc/postfix/command_filter:
/^(MAIL\s+FROM:).+(.+)/ $1$2
In postmaster
Am 22.12.2014 um 09:53 schrieb Michael Storz:
I do not understand the difference between verify and secure. If I
assign the same value to smtp_tls_verify_cert_match and
smtp_tls_secure_cert_match therefore not using the defualt values, is
there still a difference between verify and secure or
Am 21.12.2014 um 13:53 schrieb Istvan Prosinger:
Is it possibble to make Postfix relay to some specific domain using a
specific relay, and relay all the other domains by default rules (put
the mail to an inbox if local or relay outbound by the given
restrictions etc)?
I guess it'd involve a
Am 21.12.2014 um 17:24 schrieb nh:
I changed following lines :
myhostname = local.mailhost
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, $mydomain
smtpd_sender_restrictions=reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch
virtual_alias_domains = domain1.tld
Hi
i try to execute postmap like below from a PHP script running on a
webserver via passthru() - the temp-file exists and works out from a
root shell, but called from the webserver no return or error
the idea behind is
* load live ptr-rules via webservice
* store them in a temp file
* fire
Am 21.12.2014 um 22:56 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
i try to execute postmap like below from a PHP script running on a
webserver via passthru() - the temp-file exists and works out from a
root shell, but called from the webserver no return or error
the idea behind is
* load live
Am 20.12.2014 um 20:44 schrieb nh:
I have a postfix/dovecot server, and I want to have one account per domain,
ie. :
*@Domain1.tld - User1 (+ sender only users (only autop...@domain1.tld in
example), like php mail function)
*@Domain2.tld - User2
*@Domain3.tld - User3
*@Domain4.tld - User4
I
stay on list!
reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch is simple and straight
you list the envelope senders allowed or a SASL username
it don't and does not need to know anything about domains
Am 21.12.2014 um 01:55 schrieb Henry Nicolas:
Am 20.12.2014 um 20:44 schrieb nh:
I have a
Am 19.12.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Ram:
Can I use postfix smtpauth with a hash or cdb file
sasldb2 file is unfriendly , because that requires command line to add /
modify.
I want to have this fully automated using a UI
no - cyrus SASL is just a provider for postfix and postfix as consumer
even
Am 19.12.2014 um 10:53 schrieb Ram:
On 12/19/2014 03:16 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 19.12.2014 um 08:53 schrieb Ram:
Can I use postfix smtpauth with a hash or cdb file
sasldb2 file is unfriendly , because that requires command line to add /
modify.
I want to have this fully automated
Am 18.12.2014 um 13:38 schrieb Robert Fitzpatrick:
We use Postfix on our gateways that only transport to destination
servers, they do not have any local users except for standard
system/root/admin accounts. How can I get Postfix to not allow senders
to use the hostname in their email address.
Am 17.12.2014 um 07:18 schrieb Peter:
On 12/15/2014 01:36 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
DMARC verifies the From: header against SPF, DKIM or both, but
only a poorly-informed person would require that the From: address
*always* verifies with SPF.
I agree, but unfortunately I'm in the minority. It
Am 16.12.2014 um 13:05 schrieb Jens Kubieziel:
I'm trying to set up Postfix to use two smarthosts. All mail sent from
domains example.(com|org) should be sent over smtp.gmail.com (default
smarthost) and mails from Domain.A should be sent over mailgw.Domain.A
(MUA is MS Exchange). I set
Hi
is there some way to invoke regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks_smtpd.cf
to local stored messages for strip out unwanted headers?
the goal is to strip out unneeded headers froma spam corpus and
anonymize the remaining ones to share the archive and Google did not
bring anything i would
Am 15.12.2014 um 22:59 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:39:56PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
is there some way to invoke regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks_smtpd.cf to
local stored messages for strip out unwanted headers?
Have you considered postmap(1)
http
Am 15.12.2014 um 06:15 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 15. dec. 2014 00.21.30 Christian Rößner
c...@roessner-network-solutions.com wrote:
Thanks. That was what I thought. People using the header-from field.
But I couldn’t believe that. But now that you gave me this feedback, I
think this might be
Am 16.12.2014 um 00:34 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:28:26AM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 15.12.2014 um 22:59 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:39:56PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
is there some way to invoke regexp:/etc/postfix
Am 16.12.2014 um 01:09 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 01:04:29AM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
The -h option is I think what you're looking for
sounds promising - thank you for the hint!
You'll need to modify the code to process the IGNORE action,
rather than print
Am 16.12.2014 um 01:14 schrieb Peter Volkov:
always_add_missing_headers = yes
was added in main.cf, restarted server and postconf reports it is there.
According to documentation
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#always_add_missing_headers
I'm expecting to have To: header set in every
Am 16.12.2014 um 01:43 schrieb Jorgen Lundman:
L4 looks to be sending QUIT and dropping connection, not allowing for the
221 2.0.0 Bye reply, that ends up trying to flush. Apart from changing
smtpd_timeout to lessen the time it takes flush to give up, are there any
other options I could use?
Am 16.12.2014 um 01:52 schrieb Wietse Venema:
Peter Volkov:
always_add_missing_headers = yes
was added in main.cf, restarted server and postconf reports it is there.
According to documentation
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#always_add_missing_headers
I'm expecting to have To: header
Am 14.12.2014 um 18:50 schrieb ghalvor...@hushmail.com:
I decided to change the /etc/hostname to bob.example.com (previously
example.com) in order to conform more closely with the document.
http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html
I didn't think I really needed to have a
On December 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 14.12.2014 um 18:50 schrieb ghalvor...@hushmail.com:
I decided to change the /etc/hostname to bob.example.com
(previously example.com) in order to conform more closely with the
document.
http://www.postfix.org
Am 14.12.2014 um 23:48 schrieb Christian Rößner:
If I do understand this report right, DKIM passes, but SPF failed. If I look to
my last mail, I sent this day, I see this in the headers:
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.0 mx.roessner-net.de 3k0hcj6S5RzGpN5
Authentication-Results:
Am 15.12.2014 um 01:12 schrieb Jorgen Lundman:
In Nov we updated OpenSSL due to latest security alerts, and at the same
time, placed Postfix-2.7.2 everywhere (in house package version).
From this day, the graphs charting the number of smtpd processes have gone
from ~100 to about ~500. So it
Am 12.12.2014 um 15:48 schrieb Noel Jones:
On 12/12/2014 8:24 AM, Isaac Grover wrote:
Good morning,
We have users on a domain who are convinced they are losing emails
due to our spam filtering (postscreen, amavis, spamassassin). We
have shown them logs of legitimate spam being filtered with
Am 11.12.2014 um 16:27 schrieb Kris Deugau:
Richard Damon wrote:
Minor nit, SPAM filters really don't determine compliance to the
standards, they determine the likelihood of a message being
undesirable. If being 100% compliant to the RFCs made a message immune
to being detected as spam, then
Am 10.12.2014 um 20:17 schrieb Peter Volkov:
We use smtplib in python to send mail through postfix. As I saw from
tcpdump smtplib does not set Date: field, so I suspect postfix does
that. Now, as I see postfix sets date as:
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 05:40:50 -0800 (PST)
According to rfc 5322
Am 10.12.2014 um 22:59 schrieb Julian Mehnle:
I'm running Postfix 2.11.0 on Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS on multiple m3.xlarge
instances (15GB RAM) on Amazon EC2. There's a milter plugged in. This setup has
been running without problems on Postfix 2.9.6 on Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS on bare
metal machines
Am 07.12.2014 um 18:02 schrieb Jan Kowalski:
Dnia , o godz.
Steffan A. Cline stef...@hldns.com napisał(a):
have you resolved this problem yet?
I reproduce it when I connect via either imap or smtp from claws-mail
linked against gnutls 3.3.10-1 to a postfix server with dovecot sasl
enabled.
Am 07.12.2014 um 18:16 schrieb Whit Blauvelt:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 04:48:31PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Looks like some proxy is plugged in the wrong way (waiting for the
client to speak first). With SMTP the server speaks first.
Given zero details on Postfix configuration, I won't
we have reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname but nothing similar for PTR's
well, one can argue the Regex below works just fine, but the would also
be true for the HELO hostname - a small inconsistency
__
Dec 4 17:35:27 localhost postfix/smtpd[10206]: NOQUEUE: reject:
Am 05.12.2014 um 13:50 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
I see a rule on my firewall defining a custom port of 645 as smtps, yet
I cannot find anything at iana on this and googling does not explain
it. 'netstat -na|grep 645' does not show anything listening on this
port. No telling how many servers
Am 05.12.2014 um 14:00 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
I also have ident - port 113 open on the firewall. But not only is it
not open on the server's firewall, I don't see a listen for it with
'netstat -na|grep113'
I do recall that ident was one thing some MTAs wanted. Is that still
so? And if
Am 05.12.2014 um 14:12 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 12/05/2014 08:03 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 05.12.2014 um 14:00 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
I also have ident - port 113 open on the firewall. But not only is it
not open on the server's firewall, I don't see a listen for it with
'netstat
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:54 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
Just checked all of my secondary NS, and they are showing current zone
information.
from where?
http://www.intodns.com/ is *mandatory* to start debugging
http://www.intodns.com/htt-consult.com
Error DNS servers responded ERROR: One or more of
Am 05.12.2014 um 17:17 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 12/05/2014 11:03 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:54 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
Just checked all of my secondary NS, and they are showing current zone
information.
from where?
http://www.intodns.com/ is *mandatory* to start
Am 05.12.2014 um 17:40 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
You may not have been pointing z9m9z at .147 for years, but
there's a nameserver that is showing that. Also you may have the TTL
at 2 hours on the SOA that you are working with, but there's a
nameserver that's returning answers that is showing 2
Am 05.12.2014 um 17:35 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 12/05/2014 11:24 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
it's *your* responsibility to look at your own public whois and verify
your configurations published to the world and *not* the registrars
Domain servers in listed order:
Z9M9Z.HTT
101 - 200 of 861 matches
Mail list logo
