You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
Kai
I wasn't suggesting two postfixes, only two smtpds, but what Mariusz
said is even easier.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
I think Per means: 2 smtpd processes, not 2 Postfixes..
--
Rob
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:02:02 +:
So you would reject outbound mail from your domain? I'm sure that's a
typo.
He just didn't show the full configuration. It's obvious that you put your
allowance checks first.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
Rob Sterenborg r.sterenb...@netsourcing.nl wrote:
On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
I think Per means: 2 smtpd processes, not 2 Postfixes..
Rob Sterenborg wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100:
I think Per means: 2 smtpd processes, not 2 Postfixes..
and I meant what he meant ;-)
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
I guess you could start hashing things around
with IPTables to redirect certain requests, but once you've done all
of this, changed all the clients etc. etc, you are saying this would
be *easier* than SPF?
See Mariusz Kruks suggestion -
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:02:02 +:
So you would reject outbound mail from your domain? I'm sure that's a
typo.
He just didn't show the full configuration. It's obvious that you put
your allowance checks first.
Kai
I did also say 'thinking out
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:30:25AM +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
Rob Sterenborg r.sterenb...@netsourcing.nl wrote:
On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
You don't have to run two
Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
Rob Sterenborg r.sterenb...@netsourcing.nl wrote:
On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
You don't have to run two postfixes for this.
I think Per means: 2 smtpd
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:41:29 +0100
Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
Rob Sterenborg r.sterenb...@netsourcing.nl wrote:
On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Postfix: I would have two different smtpd daemons - one for
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:38:55 +0200
Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:30:25AM +, Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:39:43 +0100
Rob Sterenborg r.sterenb...@netsourcing.nl wrote:
On 2010-02-24, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Postfix: I would have two
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Christian Brel wrote:
IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on different
IP-ranges.
What about my home workers? I don't have a VPN, they hook in by DSL
from any number of different providers from outside using SASL/TLS.
They should be
Christian Brel wrote:
Humour me. Does this not mean a need to change the outbound to
either a different IP or port?
IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on different
IP-ranges.
What about my home workers? I don't have a VPN, they hook in by DSL
from any number of
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:37:49 +0100
Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Humour me. Does this not mean a need to change the outbound to
either a different IP or port?
IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on
different IP-ranges.
What
On Wednesday, 24 of February 2010, Christian Brel wrote:
No, they submit on 25 using TLS+SASL. Would making
the changes to Firewall, MTA, plus potentially thosands of clients be
easier than SPF? Would all those angry users screaming because they
can't send mail at all be a good thing? I don't
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:39:47 +:
What about my home workers?
they use SMTP AUTH. It works, believe us. With a standard postfix.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:37:49 +0100
Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
Humour me. Does this not mean a need to change the outbound to
either a different IP or port?
IP yes. I assume your external and internal network are on
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +:
But that would reject *everything* that was not authenticated or in 'my
networks'.
Indeed, that's the purpose. And it doesn't matter if you get the mail via
25 or 587. 587 is just a convenience. Any other access to use your server
for
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:19 +0100
Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com wrote:
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +:
But that would reject *everything* that was not authenticated or in
'my networks'.
Indeed, that's the purpose. And it doesn't matter if you get the
Christian Brel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:19 +0100
Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com wrote:
Christian Brel wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +:
But that would reject *everything* that was not authenticated or in
'my networks'.
Indeed, that's the purpose. And it doesn't matter
21 matches
Mail list logo
