Am 13.02.2013 22:14, schrieb LDB:
Syslog is seemingly configured properly, as well:
server:/var/log # grep mail /etc/rsyslog.conf
# email-messages
mail.* -/var/log/mail
mail.info -/var/log/mail.info
mail.warning
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Sahil Tandon sahil+post...@tandon.net wrote:
The HOLD action affects all recipients; you can be more specific by
using the retry service. See the following thread:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/197989
Thanks Sahil! I'll consider it. It
On 2/14/2013 3:43 AM, Miha Valencic wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Sahil Tandon sahil+post...@tandon.net
wrote:
The HOLD action affects all recipients; you can be more specific by
using the retry service. See the following thread:
On 02/13/2013 03:24 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
[snip]
A few choices...
- Don't use a relayhost, deliver mail directly. This requires you have a
static IP address with proper FCrDNS entries, which will require
cooperation from your ISP and may cost some extra, depending on your
current service
Hi,
I'm using Debian GNU Linux 6.0 squeeze,
postfix 2.7.1-1+squeeze1
I'm in need of using a smarthost to relay all of my mail.
I'm unable to use an italia provider (aruba) as smarthos for my server.
I obtain the (in)famous 550 5.1.0 X authentication failed
relevant part of logs:
Feb 6
Am 14.02.2013 14:48, schrieb Luca Arzeni:
I'm in need of using a smarthost to relay all of my mail.
I'm unable to use an italia provider (aruba) as smarthos for my server.
I obtain the (in)famous 550 5.1.0 X authentication failed
maybe he does not like PLAIN without encryption
why in
On 2/14/2013 6:23 AM, Dominique wrote:
On 02/13/2013 03:24 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
[snip]
- Use some third-party relayhost service, such as dyndns. This will
not be free, but shouldn't cost very much. If you have more than a
couple dozen email addresses, this will be cheaper than a google
apps
Hello List,
I'll have to start by breaking to golden rule of this list and not posting
postconf -n output as my question relates to a server over which I have no
control.
A customer of mine is using a smart host provided by their ISP through which
all outbound mail is delivered smtp.enta.net
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:03:23PM +, James Day wrote:
A customer of mine is using a smart host provided by their ISP
through which all outbound mail is delivered smtp.enta.net (which
is running postfix).
This ISP's outbound relay is a submission service that is *only* suitable
for
Am 14.02.2013 16:03, schrieb James Day:
Hello List,
I'll have to start by breaking to golden rule of this list and not posting
postconf -n output as my question relates to a server over which I have no
control.
A customer of mine is using a smart host provided by their ISP through which
.
Is there a sensible way to configure postfix to allow these messages
with null sender addresses to be relayed without opening the smart
host up to exploitation?
Sending bounces is not exploitation, but the smart host (really
submission service) policy is up to the ISP. Ask them.
I
Am 14.02.2013 16:36, schrieb James Day:
Not should, MUST. Not isn't best practice, rather prohibited.
I understand and agree however in my experience you sometimes have
to fudge things so they operate with incorrectly configured systems
(against my own wishes!)
no you have not
if you
Am 14.02.2013 16:36, schrieb James Day:
.
Is there a sensible way to configure postfix to allow these messages
with null sender addresses to be relayed without opening the smart
host up to exploitation?
Sending bounces is not exploitation, but the smart host (really
submission service)
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:36:11PM +, James Day wrote:
Is there a sensible way to configure postfix to allow these messages
with null sender addresses to be relayed without opening the smart
host up to exploitation?
Sending bounces is not exploitation, but the smart host (really
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Reindl Harald
Sent: 14 February 2013 15:43
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Null sender address in NDR's
Am 14.02.2013 16:36, schrieb James Day:
Not
--snip--
Not in this case, sending NDRs with a non-null envelope sender address is a
fundamental violation of the robustness requirements of SMTP. This goes
beyond working-around misconfiguration to flagrant violation of a basic
design requirement that prevents congestive collapse of the mail
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:14:06PM +, James Day wrote:
Not in this case, sending NDRs with a non-null envelope sender address is a
fundamental violation of the robustness requirements of SMTP. This goes
beyond working-around misconfiguration to flagrant violation of a basic
design
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 08:29:06AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/14/2013 6:23 AM, Dominique wrote:
Feb 4 14:20:57 www postfix/smtp[6592]: 6CF7EA41F89:
to=servic...@dominio.com,
relay=smtp.movistar.es[213.4.149.228]:25, delay=3.4,
delays=0.15/0.01/0.26/3, dsn=5.2.0, status=bounced (host
On 2/14/2013 11:16 AM, Alex wrote:
Hello,
I am having an issue with setting up virtual-regex email
redirection. It appears that my wild card redirection is overriding
an entry with less specific criteria.
Here is what I have in my /etc/postfix/virtual-regex
Thank you for your help. This setup is for lab/qa indeed.
What I intend to do is have only certain email form a test account forward
to outside and everything else to a single local user. Am I correct to
assume that there is no way to accomplish this with regex?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:26
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org
Virtual alias lookups are recursive, so you'll need a 1-1 mapping to
stop the recursion. Also be careful with your expressions so you
don't get unintended matches. Something like:
I'm using postfix to relay email to our exchange server.
The problem I'm running into is the spam filtering on the exchange filter
is being bypassed because the relayed email shows a from address of the
email relay server and not the originating ip address.
Is there a was to configure postfix to
Am 14.02.2013 20:31, schrieb Kevin Blackwell:
I'm using postfix to relay email to our exchange server.
The problem I'm running into is the spam filtering on the exchange filter is
being bypassed because the relayed
email shows a from address of the email relay server and not the
I apologize, as I am being confused.
Contents of my virtual-regex now are:
/somename+.*@mydomain\.com$/ somen...@yahoo.com
/^somename...@mydomain\.com$/ somen...@yahoo.com
/@mydomain\.com$/ somen...@gmail.com
/./ localuser
When I ran postmap -q somen...@somedomain.com regexp:virtual.regex.
I
Alex:
When I ran postmap -q somen...@somedomain.com regexp:virtual.regex.
I actually get correct results.
That's now what you should query.
What virtual alias expansion does is equivalent to this:
postmap -q somen...@somedomain.com regexp:virtual.regex
postmap -q
On 2/14/2013 1:40 PM, Alex wrote:
I apologize, as I am being confused.
Don't use HTML; use the gmail plain text button.
Don't top-post. Put responses at the bottom or in-line.
Contents of my virtual-regex now are:
/somename+.*@mydomain\.com$/ somen...@yahoo.com
mailto:somen...@yahoo.com
Apparently I do not understand what you mean by 1-1 mapping. My
intentions is to have any email going to:
somename(any character)@somedomain.com to be forwarded to somen...@yahoo.com
all other email to be sent to a local user.
Again thank you for your help.
I have 2 mx records. The primary is Exchanges edge server that has it's own
internal spam filtering. The secondary is poxtfix server relaying mail to
the edge server as a backup mx record. Are you saying the postfix server
should be behind the Exchange edge server?
Kevin
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at
DO NOT TOP POST IF YOU GOT A REPLY BELOW YOUR MESSAGE
ON MAILING-LISTS, SEE MY REPLY AT BOTTOM WHILE I REFUSE
TO REPAIR THE THRAED BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD PAY THE WORK
Am 14.02.2013 21:41, schrieb Kevin Blackwell:
I have 2 mx records. The primary is Exchanges edge server that has it's own
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:26:34PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/14/2013 11:16 AM, Alex wrote:
I am having an issue with setting up virtual-regex email
redirection. It appears that my wild card redirection is
overriding an entry with less specific criteria.
Here is what I have in my
On 2/14/2013 2:23 PM, Alex wrote:
Apparently I do not understand what you mean by 1-1 mapping. My
intentions is to have any email going to:
somename(any character)@somedomain.com to be forwarded to
somen...@yahoo.com
all other email to be sent to a local user.
Again thank you for
On 14 Feb 2013, at 8:48, Luca Arzeni wrote:
Is there anyone that can help me?
Maybe, maybe not. It is made less likely that anyone will be able to
help by the fact that you ignored the advice sent to all subscribers to
this list about how best to ask for help and get it.
That advice is
On 2/14/2013 4:15 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi Noel,
After implementing changes below:
1 /^somename.*@example\.com$/ somen...@yahoo.com
2 /^somename@yahoo\.com$/ somen...@yahoo.com
3 /./ somelocaluser@localhost.localdomain
Wildcard line still catching all emails. Any other information I can
The above example works for me. Did you issue postfix reload
after editing the regexp file?
Yes, I am doing postfix reload, I have verified that adding and
removing willdcard has effect. Could aliases file have adverse effect?
Le 14/02/2013 16:03, James Day a écrit :
Hello List,
I'll have to start by breaking to golden rule of this list and not posting
postconf -n output as my question relates to a server over which I have no
control.
A customer of mine is using a smart host provided by their ISP through which
On 2/14/2013 5:11 PM, Alex wrote:
The above example works for me. Did you issue postfix reload
after editing the regexp file?
Yes, I am doing postfix reload, I have verified that adding and
removing willdcard has effect. Could aliases file have adverse effect?
Lots of things could
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:58:34 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
This has nothing to do with spam. One can just as easily send spam
as mal...@example.com as one can as . The ISP can equally easily
track it down, since the Received: headers will contain the offending
IP address.
I don't know if you
On 02/15/2013 06:10 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
no need for two MX records at all
I think perhaps that is a bit of hasty advice. I'm quite sure given a
large enough infrastructure and traffic load that you'd want two or more
MX records with a different SMTP server sitting behind each IP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Blackwell said the following on 14/02/2013 20:31:
I'm using postfix to relay email to our exchange server.
The problem I'm running into is the spam filtering on the exchange filter
is being bypassed because the relayed email shows a from
* Kevin Blackwell akblack...@gmail.com:
I have 2 mx records. The primary is Exchanges edge server that has it's own
internal spam filtering. The secondary is poxtfix server relaying mail to
the edge server as a backup mx record. Are you saying the postfix server
should be behind the Exchange
Am 15.02.2013 00:29, schrieb Rod Whitworth:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:58:34 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
This has nothing to do with spam. One can just as easily send spam
as mal...@example.com as one can as . The ISP can equally easily
track it down, since the Received: headers will contain
41 matches
Mail list logo
