Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2013, 20:06:48 schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
Postfix 2.10 on Gentoo adds the safety net, but the package manager
won't automatically clobber files under /etc. You're supposed to run a
tool (etc-update) afterwards to merge any changes. I'm guessing that's
what got
Hello,
I have an issue with spam. To tackle the issue, I am going configure my
Postfix-based SMTP server by enabling 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_host name',
which will reject mail from clients that are not using a FQDN as their
host name (such as 'localhost').
After reading Postfix's
On 2013-06-07 2:56 AM, Jan Kohnert nospam001-li...@jankoh.mooo.com wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2013, 20:06:48 schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
Postfix 2.10 on Gentoo adds the safety net, but the package manager
won't automatically clobber files under /etc. You're supposed to run a
tool (etc-update)
Nikolas Kallis:
Hello,
I have an issue with spam. To tackle the issue, I am going configure my
Postfix-based SMTP server by enabling 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_host name',
which will reject mail from clients that are not using a FQDN as their
host name (such as 'localhost').
After
Hello,
Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
literal as their 'helo' command.
This in breach of RFC 2821 under section 4.1.1.1.
Regards,
Nikolas Kallis
Nikolas Kallis:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
What the documentation says is incorrect. Under '3.6 Domains' of RFC
2821, it says a host name can be an address literal. So, if I use
'reject_non_fqdn_helo_host name' and a SMTP client uses an address
literal for its host
Nikolas Kallis:
Hello,
Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
literal as their 'helo' command.
Your claim is valid. Address literals in HELO must be enclosed in [].
Wietse
What the documentation says is incorrect. Under '3.6 Domains' of RFC
2821, it says a host name can be an address literal. So, if I use
'reject_non_fqdn_helo_host name' and a SMTP client uses an address
literal for its host name, will Postfix reject the mail?
Of course not.
According to my
Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
literal as their 'helo' command.
Your claim is valid. Address literals in HELO must be enclosed in [].
I am a little confused. Were you just correcting me
On 07/06/2013 12:10, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Notice helo equals '37.212.64.248' - an address literal.
Please READ the RFC. That form is INVALID.
I think you are referring to the square brackets - I knew about them. I
didn't pick up the logic in the system message. Sorry.
Never the less,
On 6/7/2013 5:46 AM, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
literal as their 'helo' command.
This in breach of RFC 2821 under section 4.1.1.1.
You can also enforce
Wietse Venema:
Nikolas Kallis:
Hello,
Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
literal as their 'helo' command.
Your claim is valid. Address literals in HELO must be enclosed in [].
Notice helo equals '37.212.64.248' - an address literal.
Please READ the RFC. That form is INVALID.
I think you are referring to the square brackets - I knew about them. I
didn't pick up the logic in the system message. Sorry.
Never the less, '37.212.64.248' is not a domain name, so
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:05:41PM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
As '37.212.64.248' for 'helo' is neither a FQDN nor an address
literal, then is it pointless using 'reject_invalid_helo_hostname'
with 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_host name'?
I have never seen 'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' reject mail,
Hello,
Before I had my ISP setup my IP address's PTR record to resolve to one
of my domains, my IP address resolved to
'123-243-137-139.static.tpgi.com.au'. If I had used '[123.243.137.139]'
as the host name of my mail server, would a Postfix-based e-mail server
enforcing
On 07/06/2013 13:45, Michael P. Demelbauer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:05:41PM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
As '37.212.64.248' for 'helo' is neither a FQDN nor an address
literal, then is it pointless using 'reject_invalid_helo_hostname'
with 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_host name'?
I have never
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:46:46PM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
(...) 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' (...)
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname will make your life miserable and block
very little spam, assuming this third reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
related thread of yours is still about rejecting
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
I have 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' enabled; how did this unsolicited
e-mail get through?
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
'bbbmail.com' is a fully qualified domain name. That is
Le 07/06/2013 15:11, Mark Goodge a écrit :
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
On 07/06/13 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
'bbbmail.com' is
Not at all. asgljgsglhg.aergohgergearguaoreg.gaegergheagaerhgaerhgopaeg is just
as much an FQDN as mail.google.com.
Ron Scott-Adams
r...@tohuw.net
Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more deadly
in the long run. (Mark Twain)
On Jun 7, 2013, at 09:16 ,
On 07/06/2013 14:16, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
On 07/06/13 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore
Am 2013-06-07 15:16, schrieb Nikolas Kallis:
I thought for a domain to be fully qualified, it must have a PTR
record setup for it?
No, fully qualified means that all domain name components up to the top
level domain are specified.
While you can generally expect that fully qualified domain
On 07/06/13 23:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:16, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
On 07/06/13 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com',
which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not
On 6/6/2013 9:36 PM, Feel Zhou wrote:
Thanks Noel
one more thing, How to setting one IP bind two or three domain
Thanks a lot
...
# require_sender_A
A.example.com http://A.example.com OK
C.example.com OK
-- Noel Jones
On 6/7/2013 7:46 AM, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
Before I had my ISP setup my IP address's PTR record to resolve to
one of my domains, my IP address resolved to
'123-243-137-139.static.tpgi.com.au'. If I had used
'[123.243.137.139]' as the host name of my mail server, would a
Hi all,
Hopefully I can explain this good enough for someone to understand and
perhaps even suggest a solution.
Our email system is built from a LDAP directory that contains all the
necessary information about our users. A box receives mail from the MX's
and routes it according to the
Dear list,
We need to implement TLS for one of our customers using our Postfix
infrastructure (serving multiple domains) for inbound mail. The final
delivery for that domain is a Exchange server, but we have a anti-virus
server in front of that Exchange: internet - postfix-relay - AV-filter
-
On 6/7/2013 1:40 PM, polloxx wrote:
Dear list,
We need to implement TLS for one of our customers using our Postfix
infrastructure (serving multiple domains) for inbound mail. The
final delivery for that domain is a Exchange server, but we have a
anti-virus server in front of that Exchange:
Greetings,
We're starting to incorporate iPhone users into our email system.
Sometimes we seem to be having trouble with mail being delayed for a
long time before the phone will connect to the server and send the
mail. I don't really have any idea what this is. I've looked through
the
On 6/7/2013 3:28 PM, Asai wrote:
Greetings,
We're starting to incorporate iPhone users into our email system.
Sometimes we seem to be having trouble with mail being delayed for a
long time before the phone will connect to the server and send the
mail. I don't really have any idea what
On Jun 8, 2013, at 00:47, Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org wrote:
On 6/7/2013 3:28 PM, Asai wrote:
Greetings,
We're starting to incorporate iPhone users into our email system.
Sometimes we seem to be having trouble with mail being delayed for a
long time before the phone will connect to
On 6/7/2013 8:06 AM, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
$ host 46.235.78.1
Host 1.78.235.46.in-addr.arpa.
On 08/06/13 05:29, Noel Jones wrote:
On 6/7/2013 1:40 PM, polloxx wrote:
Dear list,
We need to implement TLS for one of our customers using our Postfix
infrastructure (serving multiple domains) for inbound mail. The
final delivery for that domain is a Exchange server, but we have a
anti-virus
On 6/7/2013 11:28 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
Generally only internal systems and spammers use IP literals for the
HELO hostname. I wouldn't recommend it.
Absolutely.
I would suggest not using 123-243-137-139.static.tpgi.com.au as
your HELO, since that's what all the spam bots do. Some folks
Dear List,
We have a mail server running on RHEL 6.2 with the following components :-
1. Postfix
2. Openldap
3. Courier-authlib
4. Courier-imap
5. SASL
6. Maildrop
The problem is the postfix status is showing master dead but pid file
exists after sometime. The
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 01:17:22PM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
For the general use case, just enable TLS as described in
http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#quick-start
then set both smtp_tls_security_level and smtpd_tls_security_level
to may and TLS will just start working.
Its not
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:35:15AM +0530, jayanta.gh...@cesc.co.in wrote:
The problem is the postfix status is showing ?master dead but pid file
exists? after sometime. The main.cf file and the output of postconf ?d is
attached herein. I have also gone through the log files but could not find
From what I understand, 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' detect malformed 'helo', but
'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' does not detect malformed 'helo' if
'helo' is a malformed address literal.
I.E: Given 'foo/bar.com' and '[900.111.111.900]':
40 matches
Mail list logo
