I have a Centos 5.3 box running Postfix 2.3.3.
It is setup to run incoming emails thru Policyd-Weight, Amavisd, then forward
to my exchange server.
If the Exchange server goes offline, the linux box will bounce all incoming
emails as undeliverable. How can I setup Postfix so that is queues
script that runs at night
and extracts all the users and dumps it to into the proper format for
Postfix to use. Mail me off list and I can provide you details etc.
--
Best regards,
Chris
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
I am running postfix as a SMTP front-end to my Exchange 2007 system.
When Exchange goes down, email is bounced back to the sender as undeliverable.
How can I setup postfix to 'spool' email until the backend SMTP server is
online?
I have enclosed my main.cf, master.cf, and transport configs (at
of view this
is not RFC compliant. Greylisting delays mail traffic.
If I have five incoming mx records running postfix with postscreen...
and each time the sender receives a 4xx error ... This is
unacceptable.
Otherwise, I think postscreen has some nice features and I would like to use it.
--
Chris
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Hello Postfix Users :)
I noticed:
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html#after_220
When a good client passes the deep protocol tests, postscreen(8) adds
the client to the temporary whitelist
2012/2/10 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 07:11:50PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I noticed:
http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html#after_220
When a good client passes the deep protocol tests, postscreen(8)
adds the client to the temporary whitelist but it cannot hand
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
If you let the MX share one memcache instance, the second MX to
receive a connection will immediately accept it. Works like a charm
here.
Okay, I see. That would be a solution.
How did you realize
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Read a bit more. It IS disabled unless you specifically enable it.
Postscreen? Or what do you mean?
The deep inspection and postscreen isn't enabled as well (I think)
You mean the deep protocol tests
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
The deep inspection and postscreen isn't enabled as well (I think)
You mean the deep protocol tests?
The stuff with the deep in it, yes
Can I disable these deep protocol tests in postscreen
2012/2/10 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Chris:
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Read a bit more. It IS disabled unless you specifically enable it.
Postscreen? Or what do you mean?
The deep inspection and postscreen
2012/2/11 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
On 2/10/2012 12:44 PM, Chris wrote:
2012/2/10 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
The deep inspection and postscreen isn't enabled as well (I think)
You mean the deep protocol tests? Can I disable these deep
protocol tests
Hi Postfix Users,
How to filter messages from this list?
I miss something like List-Id: Postfix Mailing List
postfix-users.postfix.org
--
Chris
--
Chris
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Hello Postfix Users :)
I am using Postfix with amavisd.
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by my.postfix-server.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
Hello Postfix Users :)
I am using Postfix with amavisd.
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0
2012/3/2 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:32:18PM +0100, Chris wrote:
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
2012/3/2 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
* Chris xchris...@googlemail.com:
I am using Postfix
Please, can anybody help me?
Chris
. This
is just how it is and it would be a nightmare to get them all to change.
So they have the option of 25 or 587.
Cheers,
Chris
On 18/05/2012 17:11, Chad M Stewart wrote:
On May 18, 2012, at 7:41 AM, Chris wrote:
master.cf
-
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd
-o content_filter=lmtp:unix:/tmp
if
they use ports 25 or 587) and non-authenticating clients get caught by
the check_client_access line at the end, which puts them through dspam,
but _unfortunately_ before queue.
Cheers,
Chris
On 18/05/2012 17:34, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/18/2012 7:41 AM, Chris wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am having
On 18/05/2012 21:19, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/18/2012 1:06 PM, Chris wrote:
Hi Noel,
The email from gmail.com in my example log comes in on port 25 - the
1st line in master.cf. If I leave the -o
content_filter=lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock in instead of removing it,
then authenticating users who
Hello Postfix-Users,
I would like to change the (Postfix) label in my mail headers to a custom label.
What do I need to change the code?
--
Chris
problem: 4425:error:1408F10B:SSL
routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:wrong version number:s3_pkt.c:340:
A general question:
Why is only postfix affected and not sendmail or exim?
--
Chris
2012/6/27 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Chris:
2012/6/26 Daniel L. Miller dmil...@amfes.com:
After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix -
using Ubuntu's Precise version, as well as the security, updates, and
backports repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken
mail.charite.de 3.2.0-26-generic #41-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 14 17:49:24 UTC
2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
Chris
Hi all.
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on the domain. How can I
do that without disabling the for everybody else?
We're using virtual mailboxes on mysql.
Thanks,
Chris
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:26:25 -0600 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain users on the domain.
How can I do that without disabling the for everybody else?
If you're only using good, safe lists
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:41:45 -0600 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:51:34PM +0100, Chris wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:26:25 -0600 /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Chris wrote:
I've been asked to skip RBL checks for certain
/sqlgrey_optout.
Thanks.
Chris
...@ilmiolibro.it REJECT Junkmail.
and the local recipient is NOT listed in /etc/postfix/sqlgrey_optout.
Thanks.
Chris
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:36:27 +0100 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote
Am 01.03.2013 12:26, schrieb Chris:
Return-Path: mailman-boun...@gator843.hostgator.com
Delivered-To: XXX
[...]
From: adsklix_advertisers-ow...@adsklix.com
To: XXX
Subject: XXX
Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:00:08
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:28:26 +0100 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote
Am 01.03.2013 13:06, schrieb Chris:
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:36:27 +0100 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote
Am 01.03.2013 12:26, schrieb Chris:
Return-Path: mailman-boun...@gator843.hostgator.com
header_checks? How so?
Pastebins:
postconf -n: http://g2z.me/4ba3f
header_checks: http://g2z.me/ec5b5
Thanks!
Chris
.
Would it be possible to implement the setting in conjuction with a REDIRECT
action?
In a way that would be transparent for the user: if the message is directed to
a local domain - OK, if it isn't then - REDIRECT
Chris
the
cross checking script to automatically purge junkmail)?
Thanks,
Chris
= static:150
I'm not perfectly sure about the hostname in the /etc/hosts ..
Does this need to be an actual domain name of one of the domains which
are served by this server?
Is there anything wrong in the main.cf?
Thank you in advance
Bye, Chris
registered).
Not sure how to continue from here. :-S
Hope anyone can help me to get this up and running.
Thanks,
Chris
Am 05.09.2013 20:05, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Chris:
Hello,
I've setup Postfix, Dovecot with MySQL and PostfixAdmin like here:
https://www.exratione.com/2012/05/a-mailserver
now. :)
Chris
Am 05.09.2013 22:40, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Chris:
Sep 5 09:05:21 nudin1 postfix/trivial-rewrite[31074]: warning: do not
list domain domain1.de in BOTH mydestination and virtual_mailbox_domains
Don't do that.
For more support, provide output from:
postconf -n mydestination
=sent (250 2.0.0 from
MTA([127.0.0.1]:10025): 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 7C75B12E00A4)
Sep 9 22:38:57 nudin1 postfix/qmgr[1344]: 2723F12E00A3: removed
What could that be?
Thank you,
Chris
file from freenet.de - it just seems as if
the server is refusing me for a reason .. I don't know?
So how can I find out why my server gets refused from some servers (but
not from itself)?
Thanks,
Chris
Am 10.09.2013 19:16, schrieb Noel Jones:
On 9/9/2013 9:46 PM, Chris wrote:
Hello,
if I
Hello Jan, Wietse,
thank you very much - so it's not about Postfix but about my DNS setup.
I'll change that in my zone settings.
Hope it works after this. :)
Bye, Chris
Am 13.09.2013 01:16, schrieb Jan P. Kessler:
Sep 12 04:57:06 nudin1 postfix/smtp[29110]: connect to
freenet.de
?
Thank you.
-Chris
not there or what's wrong here?
Hope someone know how to get rid of this warning?
Thanks,
Chris
/domain3.de.html;
from=sen...@domain2.com to=i...@domain3.de proto=ESMTP
helo=s25.domain.com
Jul 22 07:40:16 nudin3 postfix/smtpd[2558]: disconnect from
s25.domain.com[198.*.29.105]
Hope someone can help me with this .. but not sure whether it's postfix
specific?
Thanks,
Chris
forwarded a spam to the address and it hasn't bounced yet and
checked the FTC site and found no information about this address being
down.
Thanks for any advice/assistance.
--
Chris
31.11°N 97.89°W (Elev. 1092 ft)
19:51:34 up 4 days, 2:05, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.16, 0.24
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 07:02 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris:
This is a stand-alone system. I'm using postfix to forward to myself
outputs of various cron-jobs and reporting spam to s...@uce.gov. I have
postfix up and running on this new box as it was before the crash a
couple of weeks
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 10:35 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris:
Jul 24 17:37:07 localhost postfix/qmgr[12001]: 1785111C10E8:
from=cpoll...@embarqmail.com, size=14170, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jul 24 17:37:08 localhost postfix/error[988]: 1785111C10E8:
to=s...@uce.gov, relay=none, delay=1.2
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 20:26 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:25:04AM -0500, Chris wrote:
Jul 24 17:37:08 localhost postfix/error[988]: 1785111C10E8:
to=s...@uce.gov, relay=none, delay=1.2, delays=0.55/0.41/0/0.24,
dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 17:14 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris:
default_transport = error
relay_transport = error
It's like somebody took two guns and aimed at both feed.
Wietse
They should both be 'smtp' not error, no wonder it didn't work
Thank you so much, hopefully
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 21:01 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:43PM -0500, Chris wrote:
That would be virtual_alias_domains, but there could also be issues
with various main.cf transport settings or a * entry in the
transport table.
Is there * key
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:23 -0500, Chris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 17:14 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris:
default_transport = error
relay_transport = error
It's like somebody took two guns and aimed at both feed.
Wietse
They should both be 'smtp' not error, no wonder
of the virtual host?
(I run several websites on this server and therefore several mail
accounts under different domains.
Hope you know how I mean?
Thank you,
Chris
the following:
Received: from domain3.de (exgate01.bt.mail.de [11.0.131.202])
by postfix01.mail.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D534A407B8
So there shouldn't be any hint about domain3 - since I'm sending from
domain1.
How can I change this?
Regards,
Chris
Am 16.08.2014 um 21:35 schrieb li
strohh...@example2.com
without any issues!
Does someone happen to know, what the issue is? Is it possible to make
the smarthost more verbose?
Thank you in advance!
- Chris
On 10/27/2014 08:45 PM, Chris wrote:
Does someone happen to know, what the issue is?
Sorry, I didn't remember the correct syntax in my
smtpd_sender_login_maps=proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-sender-login-maps.cf
configuration.
--
Gruß,
Christian
-%<
I've been using this recipe for, well, for years
:0
* ^Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
$POSTF
HTH
Chris
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
31.11972; -97.90167 (Elev. 1092 ft)
20:59:21 up 8 days, 12:57, 2 users, load average: 0.39, 0.23, 0.19
Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS, kerne
messages an hour with postfix
so it's not that I'm being blocked as a spammer.
Thanks for any assistance
Chris
--
Chris
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
31.11972; -97.90167 (Elev. 1092 ft)
12:52:50 up 8 days, 1:54, 1 user, load average: 1.03, 1.96, 1.14
Description:Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS, kernel 4
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 19:06 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Chris:
> >
> > Nov 30 16:57:43 localhost postfix/smtp[4075]: F3FFE1000D53:
> > to= > k...@centurylink.net>, relay=smtp.centurylink.net[206.152.134.66]:587,
> Why are you sending to port 587?
>
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 14:20 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Chris <cpoll...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nov 30 11:00:05 localhost postfix/smtp[32261]: A3CEA1000BDA:
> > to= > c...@embarqmail.com>, relay=smtp.
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 21:21 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:51 PM, Chris <cpoll...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nov 30 19:46:02 localhost postfix/pickup[21295]: 98C9410005DF:
> > uid=1000
> > from=
> &
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 19:06 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Chris:
> >
> > Nov 30 16:57:43 localhost postfix/smtp[4075]: F3FFE1000D53:
> > to= > k...@centurylink.net>, relay=smtp.centurylink.net[206.152.134.66]:587,
> Why are you sending to port 587?
>
> W
21 4.3.4 allocated resources exceeded
> > > posttls-finger: SMTP service not available: 421 4.3.4 allocated
> > > resources exceeded
> > >
> > > Perhaps there's a firewall that's filtering after unauthenticated
> > > connections,
> > > or the
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 21:49 -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Chris <cpoll...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks so much for the explanation Viktor. I didn't think it was a
> > postfix issue but hoped I would get
that would work to suppress sending out the bounce
backs and have a program that I
wrote process them instead?
Chris
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay
servers to intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail through our three postfix
servers. These servers send
Peter Blair wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Chris Dos ch...@chrisdos.com wrote:
I've been tasked to figure out a way for our three postfix relay servers to
intercept every hard bounced back
e-mail and process it for our web application.
We have about nine servers relaying mail
of file?
Thanks,
Chris
Fair enough. However the documents for spf-milter-python state that I
could also do:
SPF-Neutral:aol.com REJECT
SPF-Softfail:aol.comREJECT
Would that still be valid considering SPF-Softfail:aol.com could be
seen as just one string?
Thank you for your help,
Chris
On Wed, Mar 11
What would be the best way to add a bounce+ to the beginning of every
Return-Path address for outgoing
e-mail? I've been digging for two days and have not found a workable solution.
Chris
to try to bounce to a (usually) non-legitimate
sender.
It'd be nice if Exchange accepted and then silently dropped, but that
doesn't seem to be coming. So, on my part, what can I do with Postfix
to drop messages that Exchange (defined through the transport file)
rejects?
Thanks,
Chris
this:
/^.+\+.+\=...@.+\..+$/ DISCARD
/^.+\+.+\=...@.+\..+$/ REDIRECTverpbounce
I've tested the header check by using this:
postmap -q chris+no-one-home=chrisdos@chrisdos.com
regexp:header_checks.regexp
and it comes back with a result of DISCARD.
I can't even get the DISCARD to work yet, much less
Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris Dos:
relay=mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25, delay=0.19,
delays=0.02/0/0.11/0.05, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (host
mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73] said: 550 5.1.1
chris+no-one-home=chrisdos@chrisdos.com: Recipient
address rejected: User unknown in local
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/17/2009, Chris Dos (ch...@chrisdos.com) wrote:
Sorry, I did have:
recipient_delimiter = +
in another part of my main.cf file.
One reason why the DEBUG_README asks (among other things) that you
provide output of postconf -n instead of snips from main.cf.
Here
@chrisdos.com
ORCPT=rfc822;chris+2bno-one-home+3dchrisdos@chrisdos.com
Mar 18 09:16:38 mail-dr postfix/smtp[5596]:
mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25: DATA
Mar 18 09:16:38 mail-dr postfix/smtp[5596]:
mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25: 250 2.1.0 Ok
Mar 18 09:16:38 mail-dr postfix/smtp[5596
accept or
reject.
Chris
the check_recipient_access map.
Chris
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
It looks like I want to check for RCPT TO:VERP_Address
So I ran this check against the regexp table using postmap:
postmap -q RCPT TO:chris+no-one-home=chrisdos@chrisdos.com
regexp:header_checks.regexp
and it came back with a result
-dr postfix/qmgr[9062]: 7A03D28E132: removed
Mar 20 09:06:35 mail-dr postfix/smtp[9073]: 75D8529027D:
to=chris+no-one-home=chrisdos@chrisdos.com,
relay=mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25, delay=0.19,
delays=0.02/0/0.11/0.06, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (host
mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73
Noel Jones wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Well, pointing the gun the wrong way is differently something that I
don't want to be doing. But in the case,
I'm confused. I'm having mail-dr send out to another server,
mail.chrisdos.com, on the internet. Mail-DR is
a separate mail server all together
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
unknown on the other end and it is rejected
right away, is there another way to do this.
The whole point of this exercise for me is to just intercept a bounce
back and process it internally
--
Chris Dos
Senior Engineer
Cell: 303-520-1821
Chris Dos wrote:
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Okay, since the e-mail never finishes sending because the user is
unknown on the other end and it is rejected
right away, is there another way to do this.
The whole point
of bouncing it back to the person that originally sent the mail. The
best way seems to be to use VERP. Is
there something I'm missing or a different way to go about doing
this. Maybe pass all initial bounces through
procmail or something to that affect?
Chris
Internally generated bounces
method that someone suggests, I'm all
ears.
Chris
Chris
for returned mail and I
take care to make sure that it goes someplace where it can be used to
stop the sorceror's apprentice from making more brooms. I hate it when
providers don't notify me when they won't deliver mail because it
doesn't give me a chance to fix the problem.
Chris Babcock
http
the following in my sasl directory:
/etc/postfix/sasl/sasl_passwd
/etc/postfix/sasl/sasl_passwd.db
I've attached a debug level #2 logfile and saslfinger output. I
sincerely appreciate any help. -Chris
Jul 4 12:54:34 psico postfix/pickup[31099]: 77F901D0F70: uid=500
from=n...@domain.com
Jul 4 12:54:34
. Its not easily
usable directly from syslog in its current form.
Anyone do anything like this yet? Have any suggestions or alternative
ways of doing this?
-Chris
senders. It's still expensive and sub-optimal, but it's not entirely
doomed. More importantly, it's a path toward the re-evaluation of the
business model.
Chris Babcock
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
= $myhostname ESMTP Chris Babcock 602-859-1689
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_recipient reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain permit_mynetworks reject_unauth_destination
reject_multi_recipient_bounce reject_non_fqdn_hostname reject_invalid_hostname
smtpd_helo_required = yes
documentation.
I sent a message to a verifier, which provided this helpful clue:
Please note that the DKIM filter signing this reply message
conforms to the latest IETF draft version, and thus may not be
successfully verified by older implementations.
Thank you all,
Chris
or
mail.host2.example.com.
Is there a particular reason behind this implementation, and is there any way
to work around it? I understand that wildcard certs can be considered a
security risk, but is the risk really much greater if it includes a longer
hostname?
Thanks for your time!
Chris Simmons
. Someone who behaves perfectly well on my
server might be an exceedingly poor judge of character. Without
limiting the depth of the certificate, I would have no way to accept a
TLS connection as the first without being open to the second.
I love waking up to a sub peona, don't you? :-)
Chris Babcock
rewriting and you lose a whole
lot more mail than that.
How about the root issue? You either got an always BCC configured
that you don't want or a specific class of Spam that can probably be
handled in a better way. Which is it?
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
in advance.
Regards,
Chris
--
Chris Smith
if applicable. Text is expected to be in native UNIX
stream-LF format.
Exactly what my thoughts were on the subject, how about folding of
headers they should be folded with LF-WSP as opposed to CRLF-WSP?
Regards,
Chris
--
Chris Smith
Wietse Venema wrote:
Chris Smith:
Wietse Venema wrote:
The format should be consistent with RFC 5322 (RFC 2822, RFC 822)
and with MIME if applicable. Text is expected to be in native UNIX
stream-LF format.
Exactly what my thoughts were on the subject, how about folding of
headers
with the large operations that knowingly do aggravating things without
providing tech support for those who try to be clever without the
payroll to handle the problems they cause themselves. Do you honestly
think that you're the first one to think of this 'solution' to this
class of spam?
Chris
problems or that
there are other optimizations that would have a better return for your
time - particularly if the same message payload is being delivered to
multiple recipients.
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
,reject_unknown_sender_domain,
permit
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
Thanks
Chris
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: 21 October 2009 12:04
emails as they come in.
Kind Regards
Chris
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: 21 October 2009 12:23 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix Sender Verify
This message
Hi Charles
It checks to verify the sender once, then caches the result in a database, so
mail servers aren't hassled more than once per email address verification.
Regards
Chris
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
or worse. I
have something that appears to work with the TRE regex library in
CRM-114. The top Google result for perl mime parser describes
MIME::Parser as an experimental class for parsing MIME streams.
Overall, not a promising lot.
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 344 matches
Mail list logo
