On 02/12/2012 10:52 PM, Bharath Chari wrote:
On Saturday 11 February 2012 03:51 PM, Pak Ogah wrote:
On 02/10/12 23:23, Bharath Chari wrote:
Thanks. Not really proficient - more of a cut/paste/hack artist :).
However, I do think that there are some fundamental changes that are
required in the
I've done a good deal of thinking about this, and think that it'd be
best to run it by the community at large (not just the developers) for
everyone's consideration. This is not really new, and is not much
different than what Jake had committed to some time ago. I just want to
be sure that
On Monday 13 February 2012 07:26 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:
I don't have a problem with your changes so long as they can be
included as a patch file. I have a few questions though.
Yes. The changes are via patches to two files vmysql.c and vmysql.h. I
will give you a patch file once I am
On 02/13/2012 11:25 AM, Bharath Chari wrote:
.) we've talked about removing the --disable-many-domains
configuration option at some point. Can your patch work with that
configuration?
Just to check if we are on the same page - each domain has it's own
table - that's the configuration we want
I say it is a move in the right direction. I'm sure it's going to step on
some bodies toes at some point, but if the community as a whole moves in
this direction and can settle on CentOS as the base OS of choice it will
only make us all stronger since we would all be on the same OS whether it's
32
I think that our toaster has been under attack all day (our mail volume is
quadruple our normal load), and backscatter from forged addresses is
causing our domain to keep getting black listed. Could someone on the list
give me a little guidance on how to prove/disprove this theory? If the
list
On 02/13/2012 02:04 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
I think that our toaster has been under attack all day (our mail volume
is quadruple our normal load), and backscatter from forged addresses is
causing our domain to keep getting black listed. Could someone on the
list give me a little guidance
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 02:04 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
I think that our toaster has been under attack all day (our mail volume
is quadruple our normal load), and backscatter from forged addresses is
causing our domain to keep
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Van Dresar
rvandre...@airplexus.com wrote:
allowing about 28%. I noticed that you and others are recommending placing
my local domains in the blacklist-senders file, however, I don't think I'm
using SMTP-Auth everywhere so I'm concerned that I'll
On 02/13/2012 03:01 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net
mailto:e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 02:04 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
I think that our toaster has been under attack all day (our mail
volume
is
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Peter Peltonen peter.pelto...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Van Dresar
rvandre...@airplexus.com wrote:
allowing about 28%. I noticed that you and others are recommending
placing
my local domains in the blacklist-senders
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 03:01 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net
mailto:e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 02:04 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
I think that our
On 02/13/2012 03:47 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
You are right, all of our users have to authenticate to send email, I
believe that's the default behavior of a stock QMT, so does that mean I
can add our domains to the blacklist-senders file??
Yes, by all means. Records in that file should look
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Robert Van Dresar rvandre...@airplexus.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 03:01 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net
mailto:e...@shubes.net
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 03:47 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
You are right, all of our users have to authenticate to send email, I
believe that's the default behavior of a stock QMT, so does that mean I
can add our domains to the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Van Dresar rvandre...@airplexus.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 03:47 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
You are right, all of our users have to authenticate to send email, I
believe that's
On 02/13/2012 04:12 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
OK, I changed the password for the user I see in the emails. Also, I
added our domains to the blacklist_senders file for spamdyke, and we
don't have any webforms. However, I'm not the sharpest knife in the
drawer when it comes to reading the
On 02/13/2012 04:19 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
Here's the evidence from one of the block lists:
Return-Path: m...@spencer.com mailto:m...@spencer.com
X-Original-To: mail@SPAMTRAP.INVALID
Received: frommail.airplexus.com http://mail.airplexus.com (mail.airplexus.com
Eric Shubert wrote:
... Authenticated users on port 25 bypass
all of spamdyke's filters, so my guess at this point is that one (or
more) of your users' login credentials have been compromised. Have a
look at your smtp log, and see if you can determine which account(s) is
being authenticated
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 04:19 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
Here's the evidence from one of the block lists:
Return-Path: m...@spencer.com mailto:m...@spencer.com
X-Original-To: mail@SPAMTRAP.INVALID
Received:
On 02/13/2012 04:27 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Van Dresar
rvandre...@airplexus.com mailto:rvandre...@airplexus.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net
mailto:e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 04:27 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Van Dresar
rvandre...@airplexus.com
mailto:rvandresar@airplexus.**comrvandre...@airplexus.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012
Can someone on the list please give me a little guidance? Our mail server has
been under attack today. Our normal email load is between 30 and 50
thousand emails per day; today we've processed close to 200 thousand. If I'm
reading the bounce messages right, it looks like one of our users
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Robert Van Dresar rvandre...@airplexus.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 04:27 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Robert Van Dresar
rvandre...@airplexus.com
On 02/13/2012 05:04 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
Eric,
What's the syntax for the qmHandle -ts command?? I keep getting
Subject: -ts not found in queue when I execute qmHandle -ts 'string'??
Are you specifying the entire subject string (which is what I think you
need with -ts)?
If you
On 02/13/2012 05:12 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
Never mind, I figured it out. Now when I restart qmail I get unable to
acquire send/supervise/lock: temporary failure
Stop qmail, then kill any remaining qmail processes (smtp, remote), then
remove the /var/qmail/supervise/send/supervise/lock
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Eric Shubert e...@shubes.net wrote:
On 02/13/2012 05:12 PM, Robert Van Dresar wrote:
Never mind, I figured it out. Now when I restart qmail I get unable to
acquire send/supervise/lock: temporary failure
Stop qmail, then kill any remaining qmail processes
On 02/14/2012 01:43 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
In summary, going forward QMT will be available only on RHEL/CentOS
platforms, for both x86 and x86_64 architectures. This will simplify
spec files, documentation and installation/utility scripts
substantially.
I agree and thank you all for the
1+
2012/2/13, P.V.Anthony pvant...@singnet.com.sg:
On 02/14/2012 01:43 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
In summary, going forward QMT will be available only on RHEL/CentOS
platforms, for both x86 and x86_64 architectures. This will simplify
spec files, documentation and installation/utility scripts
I have to echo the sentiment so far. I do not see an issue with CentOS and
moved that way myself well over two years ago after starting on Fedora.
CentOS is just more stable and the versions are supported longer.
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Herrera Polo
+1 for CentOS, I ve used Scientific Linux and found CentOS still is a better
fit for Enterprise.
-Original Message-
From: Helmut Fritz [mailto:hel...@fritz.us.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 8:40 PM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: RE: [qmailtoaster] Future Distros -
+1 for CentOS
Biju Jose
Mobile : +91 9895 990 272
Visit us at http://whitesindia.com
please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
-Original Message-
From: Domnick Eger [mailto:de...@cobercafe.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:18 AM
To:
Thumbs up :)
On 14 February 2012 05:49, Biju Jose b...@whitesindia.com wrote:
+1 for CentOS
Biju Jose
Mobile : +91 9895 990 272
Visit us at http://whitesindia.com
please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
-Original Message-
From: Domnick Eger
+1 CentOs
Thumbs up :)
On 14 February 2012 05:49, Biju Jose b...@whitesindia.com wrote:
+1 for CentOS
Biju Jose
Mobile : +91 9895 990 272
Visit us at http://whitesindia.com
snip
-
Qmailtoaster is sponsored
Good call. I've been using the CentOS/QMT combination since 2005 and
wouldn't think of any other.
On 2/13/2012 10:43 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
I've done a good deal of thinking about this, and think that it'd be
best to run it by the community at large (not just the developers) for
everyone's
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Eric Broch ebr...@whitehorsetc.comwrote:
Good call. I've been using the CentOS/QMT combination since 2005 and
wouldn't think of any other.
On 2/13/2012 10:43 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
I've done a good deal of thinking about this, and think that it'd be
best
36 matches
Mail list logo
