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
problems, or contain other authentication errors.
3: Then you do some final checks on mail, possible deliver it to inbox
with a [Possibly Spam] subject tag or you consider the mail ham and pass
it unmodified to receiver.
-Ursprungligt meddelande- From: li...@rhsoft.net
Sent: Thursday
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
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
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
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 = /root/ssl/certs
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
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
Am 18.02.2015 um 09:26 schrieb Gianluca Gargiulo:
my postfix directly send email, but in some conditions based on
*@domain-part* i'd like relay the email to another smtp server that
require credentials based on sender.
Can i configure postfix for this scenario?
Am 18.02.2015 um 18:26 schrieb Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов:
I need an advice about a simple (I guess) thing.
When Postfix and Dovecot are running on the same machine,
then to specify Dovecot as LDA, I use this command in main.cf
http://main.cf:
mailbox_command =
Am 18.02.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Andreas:
Am 2/18/2015 um 18:39 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
With 3.0.0 Linux distributions should start using the upstream
default. This does mean that users should remove explicit legacy
default settings of daemon_directory from their main.cf files.
Distribution
is it intentional that if a message hits more than one Regex that it
creates also more than once BCC like below? it's little bit surprising
because in all known cases the first rule hit's and the evaluation of
the file is stopped
the intention of the spamfilter+inbox...@rhsoft.net is to get
Am 17.02.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Rich Shepard:
I'm not a professional SysAdmin or network admin but have been
running my
own smtpd using cyrus-SASL for years. I want now to transition to using
dovecot-SASL and have difficulty correctly configuring dovecot.
Reading the postfix/dovecot Web
Am 17.02.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:51:07PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Is it intentional that if a message hits more than one Regex that it creates
also more than once BCC like below? it's little bit surprising because in
all known cases the first
Am 17.02.2015 um 19:05 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:02:27PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
(*) The exceptions are REJECT and DISCARD which terminate further
table lookups because the decision is obviously final.
and DUNNO
NO! That's not a final decision, processing
Am 17.02.2015 um 19:14 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 17.02.2015 um 18:46 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
is it intentional that if a message hits more than one Regex that it
creates also more than once BCC like below? it's little bit surprising
Of course. If more
Am 17.02.2015 um 18:46 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
is it intentional that if a message hits more than one Regex that it
creates also more than once BCC like below? it's little bit surprising
Of course. If more than one header line matches the table, then
more than one action
Am 17.02.2015 um 19:29 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:14:51PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 17.02.2015 um 19:05 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:02:27PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
(*) The exceptions are REJECT and DISCARD which terminate
Am 15.02.2015 um 13:37 schrieb John:
I think I am asking the wrong question.
What would be the effects of setting /mynetworks/ to 127.0.0.1/8 and
::1/128? I assume that I would need these in order to allow
inter-process communication on the server.
Could I remove the /permit_mynetworks/
Am 14.02.2015 um 11:30 schrieb LuKreme:
Has anyone had any sort of issue with a check like this:
/(unknown|localhost|localdomain|lan|home|example|local|lokal)$/ REJECT
Mailserver name in private namespace
I’ve noticed a lot of commercial non-spam email hitting this recently (for
example,
Am 14.02.2015 um 15:13 schrieb Nick Howitt:
Up to now I have been using postfix as an internal server at home
relaying messages from internal clients to my ISP, but also receiving
mail on port 25.
Now my wife has an Android, I'd like to enable her to send mail through
the server when out and
Am 14.02.2015 um 19:16 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:53:46PM -0500, Brad s wrote:
# postconf -n
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unauth_pipelining,
Am 14.02.2015 um 18:53 schrieb Brad s:
# postconf -n
postconf: warning: /usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf http://main.cf/: unused
parameter: smtpd_relay_restriction=permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,
defer_unauth_destination
postconf: warning: /usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf
Am 14.02.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Brad s:
Actually the logs are pretty clear
then you have no problem to solve?
match_list_match:ool-4355399b.dyn.optonline.net
http://ool-4355399b.dyn.optonline.net: no match
Where the possibility of there ever being a match are slim and none.
The server is
Am 14.02.2015 um 20:14 schrieb Brad s:
? Verbose logs in no way indicates software functioning properly.
unbelievebale
* you don't find the problem otherwise the thread won't exist
* nobody but you is interested in verbose logs
* so if you need help from others provide the informations
Am 14.02.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Brad s:
Here are your logs without verbose logging
https://bpaste.net/show/79c1ea5f65e6
Can see anything now. But you were very insistent
forget it - i have no nicer words than you are not able to privide basic
informations and hence should refrain to maintain
Am 14.02.2015 um 23:37 schrieb LuKreme:
On 14 Feb 2015, at 04:39 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 14.02.2015 um 11:30 schrieb LuKreme:
Has anyone had any sort of issue with a check like this:
/(unknown|localhost|localdomain|lan|home|example|local|lokal)$/ REJECT
Mailserver name in private
to provide the informations requested by them
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 14.02.2015 um 20:29 schrieb Brad s:
Here are your logs without verbose logging
https://bpaste.net/show/__79c1ea5f65e6
https://bpaste.net/show/79c1ea5f65e6
Am 15.02.2015 um 00:02 schrieb LuKreme:
that's a *not offical* postfix with discouraged pacthes
Is it? dammit.
I built with
SYSLIBS = -L/usr/local/lib -lpcre -L/usr/local/lib -lsasl2 -lpam -lcrypt
-L/usr/local/lib -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -lssl -lcrypto -L/usr/local/lib
-lspf2
Am 13.02.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Mats Luspa:
I have configured an outgoing server that relays one domain to a
smtp-host and the rest of the addresses to the internet.
I'm using the transport_maps-option and have no value on relayhost.
The transport-map has the following information:
irf.se
Am 13.02.2015 um 16:23 schrieb Gianluca Gargiulo:
can i tell to postfix forse add Message-Id header if is not present?
you need to adjust local_header_rewrite_clients to your environment
local_header_rewrite_clients = permit_mynetworks
always_add_missing_headers = yes
Am 14.02.2015 um 01:50 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 13. feb. 2015 16.23.55 Gianluca Gargiulo wrote:
can i tell to postfix forse add Message-Id header if is not present?
to get a better help, postconf -n is needed, since no one have crystall
balls here
WTF would anybody need postconf -n
has somebody an idea for the chicken egg problem that postfix-install
in the %installof a RPM-spec can't load the shared libraries which are
built but not installed at that moment?
+ sh postfix-install -non-interactive
=%{postfix_user} setgid_group=%{maildrop_group}
manpage_directory=%{_mandir} sample_directory=%{postfix_sample_dir}
readme_directory=%{postfix_readme_dir} || exit 1
Am 12.02.2015 um 11:20 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
has somebody an idea for the chicken egg problem that postfix-install
in the %installof
Am 12.02.2015 um 23:56 schrieb LuKreme:
On 12 Feb 2015, at 13:42 , Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
spamass-milter uses the standard spamassassin spamc/spamd interface.
I believe you can enable additional spamass-milter logging on its
startup command line.
There are startup flags you
Am 12.02.2015 um 21:26 schrieb LuKreme:
I believe I have the spams-milter working with postfix
main.cf
milter_default_action = accept
smtpd_milters = unix:/var/run/spamass-milter.sock
Two questions. Wouldn’t the log show the milter instead of spamd?
no
And now that this is working, how do
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
Am 12.02.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
You MUST NOT invoke
Am 12.02.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
You MUST NOT invoke postfix-install directly.
You MUST use make install as described in the INSTALL instructions
besides that SPEC
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:58:39PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
that below works like a charm:
make non-interactive-package install_root=%{buildroot}
config_directory=%{postfix_config_dir} meta_directory=%{postfix_daemon_dir}
daemon_directory
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:18 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
according to the subject a You MUST use make non-interactive-package
would have saved a lot of noise including the completly unnecessary
flames about rpm crap
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:50 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Instead of sh postfix-install name=value use make install name=value
i did that as you can see on bottom if the message you responded to
make install -non-interactive install_root=%{buildroot}
config_directory
version, first time install)
# make upgrade (non-interactive version, for upgrades)
pretty sure the reason why Redhat is using postfix-install while for
all other packages make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} is in use
Am 12.02.2015 um 16:00 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:50
Am 12.02.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
No, I said:
make install name=value
without rpmbuild crap. I support make install only. I do not support
rcpmbuild crap.
interesting attitude in context of subject rpmbuild and shared=yes
Please stick to the supported
Am 12.02.2015 um 16:21 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
the most likely reason is make install versus make upgrade which
*both* don't apply for a rpmbuild because there is no business for
interactive and no business for non-interactive version, for upgrades
would make install just work
Am 12.02.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:40:47AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Where did I tell you to make install -non-interactive?
As I explained above, use make upgrade you want a non-interactive
Feb 2015 08:12:44 -0500 (EST)
Von: Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
An: li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net
Kopie (CC): postfix-users@postfix.org
li...@rhsoft.net:
well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
You MUST NOT invoke postfix-install directly
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
according to the subject a You MUST use make non-interactive-package
would have saved a lot of noise including the completly unnecessary
flames about rpm crap without *by all respect* no clue about how it
works
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:18 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
according to the subject a You MUST use make non-interactive-package
would have saved a lot
Am 11.02.2015 um 23:14 schrieb Shawn Heisey:
Currently my production mail relay for work (sitting between Exchange
and the Internet) uses Postfix 2.9.3 on Debian 6. I'm building up a new
system using Postfix 2.11.0 on Ubuntu 14, and incorporating postscreen
as the first line of defense.
Am 12.02.2015 um 01:03 schrieb Shawn Heisey:
On 2/11/2015 3:24 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
just don't enable deep protocol tests if you don't want 450 rejects and
rob0's example is nice but don't blindly follow howtos without real
understanding
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
Am 08.02.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Wietse Venema:
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-3.0.0.html]
Postfix stable release 3.0.0 is available. This release ends support
for Postfix 2.8
thanks - especially for the header_checks
Am 09.02.2015 um 20:32 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:22:12PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
I don't set meta_directory to
/etc in my builds. Indeed none of the meta_directory files are
intended to be configuration files that are hand-edited. They
should only
Am 09.02.2015 um 21:51 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 09.02.2015 um 21:46 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
well, meta_directory=%{postfix_daemon_dir} at build leads in
/usr/libexec/postfix/postfix-files instead /etc/postfix/postfix-files
but postfix refuses to start like below
cp
Am 09.02.2015 um 21:46 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
well, meta_directory=%{postfix_daemon_dir} at build leads in
/usr/libexec/postfix/postfix-files instead /etc/postfix/postfix-files
but postfix refuses to start like below
cp /usr/libexec/postfix/postfix-files /etc/postfix
Am 09.02.2015 um 20:13 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 07:47:50PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
one question:
why are postfix-files, main.cf.proto and master.cf.proto below /etc
since they are not intended to get modified by the admin and hence belongs
somewhere below /usr
Am 06.02.2015 um 14:52 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 06.02.2015 um 14:43 schrieb Charles Marcus:
Well... ok, so now I just have to figure out what I'm missing/doing
wrong.
Hmmm... ok, just moved it from smtpd_relay_restrictions to
submission_client_restrictions and it works now
Am 06.02.2015 um 14:43 schrieb Charles Marcus:
Well... ok, so now I just have to figure out what I'm missing/doing wrong.
Hmmm... ok, just moved it from smtpd_relay_restrictions to
submission_client_restrictions and it works now...
But it still looks to me like it should have worked when
Am 05.02.2015 um 14:50 schrieb Микаел Бак:
Hi there,
On 02/04/2015 11:06 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
the truth is that a xx.xx.xx.xx-static-dsl.isp.tld is not a mailserver
just becaus eit contains the word static - in fact most of them are
ordinary office dsl lines with clients behind
True
Am 05.02.2015 um 14:54 schrieb Inteq Solution - Dep. Tehnic:
Thank you for taking your time to reply Wietse,
I might have been a bit ambiguous about my problem.
I know how to whitelist inbound u...@domain.com while rejecting the all
other inbound from @domain.com
My problem is:
domainA.com
Am 05.02.2015 um 22:00 schrieb SW:
smtpd_tls_exclude_ciphers = aNULL, eNULL, DES, 3DES, MD5, DES+MD5, RC4
disable DES *and* Rc4 is pure nonsense because it leads in some servers
not able to send mail to you at all and way more fall back to plain as
needed
Am 05.02.2015 um 22:19 schrieb Charles Marcus:
Ok, Can't seem to figure this out...
I want to block sending to certain domains - in this case, a domain that
is typod...
Googling suggests this should work:
smtpd_relay_restrictions = check_recipient_access
${hash}/blacklisted_domains,
Am 05.02.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Marcus Bointon:
On 5 Feb 2015, at 14:58, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
... you don't need your ISP to configure that simple DNS record for your own
domain
Actually you usually do. When anyone does a reverse lookup on your IP, it will
point at the ISP's DNS
Am 05.02.2015 um 15:58 schrieb Christian Rößner:
So at the moment I stay at my opinion that Postfix is running very stable wie
PIE ans SSP.
If I am wrong, please contact me offlist. Then I would have to do a lot of work
to correct this problem. Hopefully not. ;-)
postfix is running fine
Am 05.02.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
what you you smoked to only quote the part of a sentence which makes no
Reindl, tone it down
sorry, but that style of quote out-of-context and then explain me what a
PTR is like i would not know such things better as most
Am 05.02.2015 um 22:26 schrieb SW:
li...@rhsoft.net wrote
Am 05.02.2015 um 22:00 schrieb SW:
smtpd_tls_exclude_ciphers = aNULL, eNULL, DES, 3DES, MD5, DES+MD5, RC4
disable DES *and* Rc4 is pure nonsense because it leads in some servers
not able to send mail to you at all and way more fall
10:32:57 +0100
Von: li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Am 05.02.2015 um 10:25 schrieb saulos:
Hi I have a problem with one provider tiscali when try to send to him I get
this error
where is your postconf -n?
postfix/smtp[13339]: 866B961BF5: TLS is required
Am 05.02.2015 um 11:03 schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
You are putting too much of meaning in a DNS token. There is no global
rule or RFC about the interpretation of the string forming this token.
I'm totaly free to call my host bad-host-static-0815.example.com.
which is no problem because it
Am 04.02.2015 um 22:54 schrieb Noel Jones:
On 2/4/2015 3:12 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
*sadly* that sort of incoming rules is not widespreaded enough,
otherwise spam from infected botnet zombies would no longer exist
and frankly the rule for IPhfc.comcastbusiness.net is manually
written
Am 04.02.2015 um 21:51 schrieb Noel Jones:
On 2/4/2015 2:37 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
it don't matter if it matches - if you are coming with such a PTR
you are rejected - on my setup this is skipped at least if the
envelope domain has a SPF policy listing that IP or if you are on
one of 11
Am 04.02.2015 um 20:47 schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
I have been 'working' with my new ISP for a couple weeks to get the rDNS
setup for my server move (I am changing ISPs for a number of reasons). I
was assured on signing that setting up rDNS was 'easy'; it is not.
DIGing up the SOA on my IP rDNS
what exactly did you not understand in:
Unfortunately, messages from 103.15.178.123 weren't sent. Please
contact your Internet service provider since part of their network is on
our block list. You can also refer your provider to
http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors;
Am
Am 04.02.2015 um 15:40 schrieb Andrew Bourgeois:
But what does persistent write cache mean? What needs to be changed on
the OS level? Google doesn't clearly link persistent write cache to a
Linux feature.
https://www.google.at/#q=write+cache+storage
https://www.google.at/search?q=bbu+storage
Am 04.02.2015 um 16:39 schrieb LuKreme:
Quite a few users are forwarding their mail to either yahoo or gmail, which is
causing a lot of trouble because both services see spam being forwarded and
blacklist the sending server (me). Gmail at least seems to calm down after a
little while, but
Am 04.02.2015 um 16:30 schrieb francis picabia:
I'm not aware we can introduce exemptions for smtpd_client_connection_rate_limit
smtpd_client_message_rate_limit
If anyone has already tweaked Postfix to accommodate
the Everbridge alert system, do you want to share what helped?
you can easily
Am 04.02.2015 um 03:31 schrieb Peter:
On 02/04/2015 02:47 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
It may be tricky, Postfix applies AUXLIBS when building both the
final executables, and the shared libraries, but it seems that
-pie is not appropriate for shared libraries. Additinal makedefs
and Makefile.in
Am 03.02.2015 um 13:17 schrieb Danny:
I have postfix setup on a Debian system that manages all my mail. However,
whenever php is sending mail it sends it under user www-data. I tried changing
the headers in php but it remains the same.
Is there someway I can change this to a more friendly name
Am 03.02.2015 um 23:35 schrieb Peter:
On 02/04/2015 11:31 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
make makefiles shared=yes 'CCARGS=-fPIC' 'AUXLIBS=-fPIE -pie'
...fails
Of course it does. You used both -fPIE and -fpie.
No, I used both -fPIE and -pie (without the f)
BUT one belongs to CCARGS and the
Am 04.02.2015 um 02:31 schrieb Peter:
On 02/04/2015 01:42 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
BUT one belongs to CCARGS and the other to AUXLIBS
re-read the previous mails in this thread!
...and from one of *my* previous emails:
make makefiles shared=yes 'CCARGS=-fPIC -fPIE' 'AUXLIBS=-pie
Am 01.02.2015 um 10:01 schrieb LuKreme:
On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:29 PM, Bill Cole
postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com wrote:
Which doesn't mean you don't have some other Postfix binaries lurking...
Good point.
There are files in /usr/sbin/ and in /usr/local/sbin/ and it appears that
Am 01.02.2015 um 22:26 schrieb LuKreme:
On 01 Feb 2015, at 05:41 , DTNX Postmaster postmas...@dtnx.net wrote:
By the way, CA-signed certificates start at less than $10/year, so if you ever
do run into an issue which might be resolved by getting one, and your
configuration isn't too complex,
Am 01.02.2015 um 23:15 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 10:32:53PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
just make it once in your lifetime, create a template for default params and
a script with minimal maintainance like for hash-method and keylength - the
script below in any case
Am 01.02.2015 um 04:59 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 31 Jan 2015, at 17:33, LuKreme wrote:
What should I do about these warnings? Is there any reason not to
reject the IPs in question? And if not, how do I do so? mail_version =
2.11.3
warning hostname 102-253-144-216.static.reverse.lstn.net does not
Am 01.02.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 05:11:15AM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Nearly every SMTP client using an IP with a PTR whose name does not
resolve back to that IP sends nothing but spam
bullshit - in the real world that's not true
The message you
Am 31.01.2015 um 05:49 schrieb Joey J:
I'm getting the following when I start postfix ( literally that many times)
/usr/sbin/postconf: warning: /etc/postfix/main.cf http://main.cf:
unused parameter: mx_access=hash:/etc/postfix/mx_access
Here is a section of my configuration, I cant' seem to
Am 30.01.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Andreas Fagschlunger:
What I found out so far is, that postfix doesn't feel responsible for
mydomain.com. When I change mydestination to mydomain.com, postfix accepts
mails.
But I want postfix to lookup the domain against mysql. I've read all the
tutorials
Am 29.01.2015 um 17:52 schrieb Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов:
But if my current way of applying a content filter is not correct, then
with correct config like in examples:
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
-o content_filter=lmtp:unix:/var/run/dspam.sock
if you write it taht way it is completly wrong
please don't top-post and don't link to external ressources
especially not ones require javascript
* output of pstconf -n
* master.cf
* directly into the mail
the whole sentence with unders smtp and not under smtps makes no sense
Am 29.01.2015 um 11:25 schrieb Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов:
Am 29.01.2015 um 19:03 schrieb Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов:
This message was really informative, thanks.
Actually in my configs I use spaces where needed, it's just my mail
client deletes spases if they are the first character of a sentence.
I didn't find anything useful in DSPAM logs, but I'll
Am 28.01.2015 um 15:38 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 28. jan. 2015 14.57.27 li...@rhsoft.net li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
all serious distributions have a newer glibc or offer updates
Jan 28 05:41:58 Updated: glibc-common-2.5-123.el5_11.1.x86_64
Jan 28 05:42:03 Updated: glibc-2.5-123.el5_11.1.x86_64
Am 28.01.2015 um 07:18 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 28. jan. 2015 06.50.31 Peter pe...@pajamian.dhs.org wrote:
Honestly, I don't know if postfix uses that function or not, but if
postfix isn't vulnerable then you almost certainly have some other
program on your box that is. I would recommend
Am 28.01.2015 um 15:28 schrieb deoren:
I searched via Google and via the mailing list archives, but I didn't
find a post which matched my specific situation.
I see those warnings in the logs when the system goes down for a reboot.
Is the mail lost? Should I be using a different approach when
Am 28.01.2015 um 17:10 schrieb deoren:
On 2015-01-28 08:33, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 28.01.2015 um 15:28 schrieb deoren:
I searched via Google and via the mailing list archives, but I didn't
find a post which matched my specific situation.
I see those warnings in the logs when the system
Am 28.01.2015 um 19:04 schrieb Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов:
Trying to add DSPAM to my Postfix - Dovecot setup, I came across an
interesting situation, maybe someone here had a similar problem before?
Here's what happens:
Only local mail (i.e. letters sent from one mailbox to another mailbox
on my
Am 28.01.2015 um 19:38 schrieb srach:
I have read the documents for some different Greylisting opportunities
for Postfix
This built into Postfix
http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html#greylist
and popular ones
http://wiki.policyd.org
http://postgrey.schweikert.ch
I am not finding
Am 28.01.2015 um 20:21 schrieb srach:
28. Jan 2015 19:17 by wie...@porcupine.org mailto:wie...@porcupine.org:
There are good reasons to NOT integrate, and instead use the
least-expensive solution before the most-expensive solution.
postscreen implements a least-expensive solution
Am 28.01.2015 um 20:08 schrieb srach:
28. Jan 2015 18:43 by li...@rhsoft.net mailto:li...@rhsoft.net:
besides that greylisting is harmful in case of large sending
clusters not returning with the same IP while re-try a deferred
message postscreen can do this more or less as side
maybe you need some numbers why the below config is good and greylisting
not needed
peak day 2015/01
* postscreen rejects: 9
* spamassassin: 120
* clamav: 15
* delivered mail: 850
that are numbers for a single day
Am 28.01.2015 um 20:19 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 28.01.2015 um 20:08
Am 28.01.2015 um 20:46 schrieb srach:
28. Jan 2015 19:28 by li...@rhsoft.net mailto:li...@rhsoft.net:
maybe you need some numbers why the below config is good and
greylisting not needed
peak day 2015/01
* postscreen rejects: 9
* spamassassin: 120
* clamav: 15
Am 28.01.2015 um 21:00 schrieb srach:
28. Jan 2015 19:19 by li...@rhsoft.net mailto:li...@rhsoft.net:
postscreen_dnsbl_sites =
http://b.barracudacentral.org=127.0.0.2*7
http://dnsbl.inps.de=127.0.0.2*7
I see from the example you give that these are I think all DNSBL that
are domain
1 - 100 of 861 matches
Mail list logo
