If you have two instances of any applications running, they can't both
be sharing the same ports, so, POP3 could be port 110 for 1 of the
instances and then some other port for the other instance, and SMTP
could be port 25 for one of the instances and some other port for the
other instance.
, this seems logical.
Is there any way to process an outgoing message and change its headres to
contain the domain2 properties (i.e - different mail.domain2.com)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 4:39 PM
:
Thanks Jeff, this seems logical.
Is there any way to process an outgoing message and change its headres to
contain the domain2 properties (i.e - different mail.domain2.com)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Sunday, September
Hi all -
Xmail 1.21 is running along smoothly on a FreeBSD 5.3 platform with
about 60 or so users. Thanks for the great update, Davide!
I am interested in implementing greylisting. When I do so (using glst)
I get the rejmsg as a valid user. However, I am not doing SMTP
authentication but
Great, Davide - thanks.
I will try the patch.
Jeff
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hi all -
Xmail 1.21 is running along smoothly on a FreeBSD 5.3 platform with
about 60 or so users. Thanks for the great
Under FreeBSD the existing port is way out of date (version 1.8 or
something like that), so the simple (and I think proper) approach I use
is to:
1. download the distro from the official xmail site and compile it
2. put a start/stop script at /usr/local/etc/rc.d (this may differ for
netBSD or
Hi Davide -
I apologize that I have'nt gotten back to you about the patch for pop3
before SMTP and the glst module - trapped by other things. It works
well, except that Macintosh (OS X) users (at least, perhaps others?)
seem to have a problem with it. I suspect some variation in the login
and instruct my users to set up SMTP authentication.
Jeff
**
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hi Davide -
I apologize that I have'nt gotten back to you about the patch for pop3
before SMTP and the glst module - trapped by other things. It works
well, except
Hi Darren -
I am also running Freebsd 5.3, (kernel last upgraded in January after
the last security advisory). I havn't seen any of the problems you are
referrring to. I have been running 1.21 (and before its release 1.20)
since FreeBSD 5.3 was first released as stable (5.2 and 5.1 prior to
I presently have 1581, so it has increased from this morning, but after
a pop3 login I did not see an immeadiate increment. You are certain
that the non-buggy (expected) behavior for KQUEUE is only a single
occurence (or maybe a couple of occurences)? I have about 40 users
using this server
Thanks -
I am going to rebuild XMail without the -lc_r and see how it goes ...
Jeff
decker wrote:
Hello,
With the rebuilt XMail (after removing the -lc_r from Makefile.bsd), it closes
the KQUEUE immediately after it's done, as it should. You should never have
any KQUEUE FDs open, unless of
It did.
decker wrote:
Hi
I am going to rebuild XMail without the -lc_r and see how it goes ...
Cool, let me know if it gets rid of all those KQUEUE's for you as well.
-Darren
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Hi all -
I am trying to track down a core dump - the first one I have ever had
with Xmail after over four years of constant use - under FreeBSD. The
only thing I have changed recently is to recompile XMail /without /the
-lc_r flag, which has reduced my KQUEUE entries (as discussed
I have been using Uebimiau for a year or so and it runs well - no IMAP,
though. It is PHP so it should be fine under Windows.
Jeff
null wrote:
Greetings all,
I was able to resolve my earlier issue with connection/ management.
So, I am wondering what WebMail solutions anyone would recommend.
by then.
Jeff
Dofri Jonsson wrote:
On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:53, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hi all -
I am trying to track down a core dump - the first one I have ever had
with Xmail after over four years of constant use - under FreeBSD. The
only thing I have changed recently is to recompile XMail
I think that can be fiound in /inc/config.php $quota_limit= xxx
Jeff
Dale Qualls wrote:
Ditto, I like Uebimiau as well.
My only issue with Uebimiau is that if there is more than 10MB in the
mailbox you can't view a message - I know this has to be a config
setting somewhere but I never
that xmail is
using the reentrant functions.
I'll know more as a bit of time goes by!
Jeff
Jeff Buehler wrote:
By the way, the author of the link I posted previously kindly included
code that he used to solve the prblem on his system. Here it is:
static int
kqueue_stat(struct file *fp
Perhaps the problem is that you are running Windows servers rather than
Linux, or even better, *BSD?
Or perhaps I shouldn't take advantage of this mail list to express
personal preferences?
No need to reply to that ... I'm just kidding. :)
However, and this probably doesn't help, I haven't had
Are any of you running (gasp. gurgle. urgh.) Exchange? Here is what
some simple Google searches turned up about the Earthlink thing:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/24495/24495.html
http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblog/2004/06/02/exchangeproblems
users can modify the code and recompile when
problems come up! Yay! Whoops, there I go ... Anyway, check this out -
I hope it helps.
http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblog/2004/06/02/exchangeproblems
Jeff
Jeff Buehler wrote:
Are any of you running (gasp. gurgle. urgh.) Exchange? Here
Hi -
If it's SPAMish, then there might be a problem if the recipients get
their hands on you! 40,000 mad recipients would make quite a lynch mob...
Jeff
Matic wrote:
Hi,
will there be a problem with xmail list account with 40.000 users?
Matic
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
On Wednesday,
Hi all -
Does anyone know of a way, or have a filter written to, do a lookup of
the domain in the from field and/or the return field of an email and
check that it has a valid MX record as a spam deterrent using XMail? I
haven't been able to find a reference to this on line...
Thanks!
Jeff
-
--
From: Jeff Buehler[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 8:32 PM
To: Xmail Mailing List
Subject: [xmail] anti-spam DNS MX Record Lookup
Hi all -
Does anyone know of a way, or have a filter written to, do a lookup of
the domain in the from field
Can you install it on a windows client and access your Linux box remotely?
That is what I would do, if possible, in your situation. This is not
becauseI particularly like Windows (I do not - actually, I am beginning to
despise it because everyone uses it even when it is not to their advantage
It's running well for me. I only manage about 50 domains, however.
I am dissapointed by losing the abilty to create forwards/redirects to other
domain accounts, though, in the Lite version. I assume the commercial
version has this functionality... I don't know how I feel about losing the
don't mean to comment negatively on making software
commercial - that's always a difficult issue when operating in the open
source community, and it seems fair to me that people get something back
in life for their hard work, whatever they do.
So thanks for the great tool!
Jeff
Jeff Buehler
From netstat -t -n -a -p on a FreeBSD system:
usage: netstat [-AaLnSW] [-f protocol_family | -p protocol]
[-M core] [-N system]
netstat -i | -I interface [-abdnt] [-f address_family]
[-M core] [-N system]
netstat -w wait [-I interface] [-d] [-M core]
There is a simple patch (requiring a few lines of code) available for
the kqueue problem. I run 1.21 on 5.4 (and for 6 or so months on 5.3)
and have no problems after modyfying the code for the kqueue problem. I
have found it to be incredibly stable (Xmail has never gone down that I
can
I don't see XMail (or the standard POP3/SMTP) ports anywhere (those
being 110 and 25 or maybe 587). However, I think port 6017 is the XMail
CtrlClnt port, so that should (possibly) be working.
The ports you are listening on are:
22 (? - ftp?), 1 (?), 443 (HTTP/SSL), 80 (HTTP), 5432 (?),
Sorry, I meant default ports, not all ports. I use XMAIL_CMD_LINE=-MM
-Pl -Sl -SI 127.0.0.1:25 -SI 192.168.1.13:25 -SI 192.168.1.13:587 -SI
192.168.2.13:587 -Ll -Fl -Mr 240 from my startup script in
/usr/local/etc/rc.d. 192.168.2.13 is listening for connections from an
anti-spam server I
as actively listening, so XMail is not running.
I don't use IPFSTAT since I am nat'd behind a hardware firewall (I
probably should anyway, though!). Maybe tomorrow.
Do a ps -alx | grep XMail and you should see the XMail process, but I
don't think you will, so something is not right.
Jeff
Jeff Buehler
To prevent sendmal from runnig under Freebsd, add to /etc/rc.conf the
following: sendmail_enable = NONE. However, I don't know why
sendmail would interfere with CtrlClnt, or if it would. You can do a ps
-alx | grep sendmail to see if it's running.
Port 587 is the standard port that is used
I have never seen or used mta_start_script= - based on what you sent,
though, I doubt you are using it properly and I have no idea what the
side effects of your approach will be. My scripts in/etc/rc.d and
/usr/local/etc/rc.d start up fine without it (in 5.3. and 5.4). If it
works, though,
Your get system panics using the patch? Are you certain you have the
right one - I get nothing like that at all. Perhaps you are running a
service that uses the function (kqueue_stat in kern_event.c) and doesn't
like it that I am not running?
Here are the modifications I use that work
If you have a SPAM problem, I would advise the following configuration:
1. Dump windows. Ubiquitous != good. Install Linux or FreeeBSD.
2. Install ASSP - an excellent anti-spam, opensource program
3. Install ClamSMTP and ClamAV.
ASSP - ClamSMTP - XMail. It works great. Use the beta 12 or 13
any wars! Certainly never my
intention - there are enough ridiculous wars around without my help (um,
I hope that doesn't start another discussion!)
Jeff
CLEMENT Francis wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : Jeff Buehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mercredi 22 juin 2005 18:30
À
:
Jeff Buehler wrote:
However, ASSP (nor ClamSMTP nor ClamAV) do not run on Windows.
FYI -
http://www.clamwin.com/
(Not that I run xmail on Windows, but just to clarify.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED
assp on windows just fine and have for quite some time.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:04 PM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: Help Xscanner
Opps - thanks! That's actually good
a lot ...
Computers must be easy to use.
The big point for windows is that it is easy to use, easy to
manage/configure ...
All tools are gui, all are consistent in use, ...
Is there a complete managment tool for linux ?
Francis
-Message d'origine-
De : Jeff Buehler [mailto:[EMAIL
and 587, and can't support any more IP/PORTs. So, there was no
MTA running on 127.0.0.1:25 - I added this to XMail, and now I am
waiting to see if I start getting some emails from the system!
If not, I will send out another email with info and questions...
Thanks...
Jeff Buehler wrote:
I have
-bd port? I'm sorry - I don't know what to do with that. A flag to the
sendmail daemon, or some other archaic invocation?
You are of course correct about the assumption thing - I can't seem to
help it.
Thanks,
Jeff
Alexander Hagenah wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Friday, July 01, 2005
Hi Alexander -
Sorry - got it now. I did a man of sendmail, and there it was, three
lines or so down, -bd to run sendmail deamon with port alternatives.
Thanks. I am not certain if this is going to help me with this
particular problem, because I don't (think I) want sendmail listening on
Hi all -
This question may be a bit out of place, but someone here may have a
recommendation...
Over the years, I have had an occasional problem with different mail
clietns choking on pop before smtp. Generally this has been the case on
Mac (OS 9) mail clients, which thankfully are gone
users using smtp authentication, and it works (so far).
Should I be concerned? This must be some funky ASSP thing ... but I am
(pleasantly?) suprised that XMail allows it to verify even when it is
not set to do smtp authentication (or at least I didn't think that it was!)
Jeff
Jeff Buehler
, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hmmm -
It would appear that if I set the email clients in question to require
SMTP authentication, and use the same username and password as for pop3
authentication, then everything works. I thought this was an either/or
requirement, but now I have most users doing pop3
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:33 AM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: pop before smtp
Yes, the email client (in this case Thunderbird and numerous other
external email clients) must be doing pop before smtp since I have never
because, as another use kindly pointed out recently, why not?
Thanks again for your input, Davide!
Jeff
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Yes, the email client (in this case Thunderbird and numerous other
external email clients) must be doing pop before smtp since
:
On 06.07.2005 20:59, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Nah! ASSP (anti spam smtp proxy) is actually a great opensource
anti-spam proxy tool that (as it tunrs out) runs under Linux, FreeBSD
and Windows. It loads a specified number of bytes of a given mail then
refuses the connection based on a bayesian determination
from ASSP, not the
MUA.
Rob :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 4:59 AM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: pop before smtp
Nah! ASSP (anti spam smtp proxy) is actually a great
At first I thought that was a question I should just go ahead and answer
without bothering to double check my Thunderbird configuration, because
I was certain that it isn't doing SMTP authentication. As it turns out,
it is - at some point I actually checked the box to do so, and I have no
idea
Hi everyone -
I am running XMail 1.21 on FreeBSD 5.4 - everything runs great. However,
although HeloDomain is set (to mail.buehlertech.net and
mail2.buehlertech.net) my greeting remains, for example,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]. I assume the prefix is random.
If I remove helodomain, I get the same
Hi Sönke -
Thanks for your reply -
Presently my [SmtpServerDomain] is set to buehlertech.net, does it
require the prefix (i.e. mail or mail2.buehlertech.net)?
Jeff
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
On 15.07.2005 21:31, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hi everyone -
I am running XMail 1.21 on FreeBSD 5.4
Hi Sönke -
When I change [SmtpServerDomain] by adding the prefix (mail2) then the
resulting greeting is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is that correct? I wasn't expecting the numeric value before the domain...
Jeff
Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hi Sönke -
Thanks for your reply -
Presently my [SmtpServerDomain
Hi all -
Does anyone know of an existing solution for the auto-deletion of
undeliverable messages in XMail? I am running FreeBSD.
Writing something to remove them all periodically would be pretty easy,
but I would like something that allows a settable time to collect dust
before removing
?
In the meantime, I am going to turn on RemoveSpoolErrors as you
mentioned just so I don't have to go empty out the undeliverable queue
every three days manually.
Thanks again!
Jeff
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 17.07.2005 22:53, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Does anyone know of an existing solution
Thanks! I'm doing it right now ...
Jeff
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
Jeff,
On 17.07.2005 23:10, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Thanks, Sönke -
I was hoping to keep them in the queue for awhile, but I am collecting
500 or more undeliverables a day presently since I am forwarding to a
domain
By the way, Sönke, the solution you outlined is working perfectly - thanks!
Jeff
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 18.07.2005 20:38, Eric Garnice wrote:
I have an XMail server in front of an Exchange server solely doing
SpamAssassin. A problem arises where missed spam is sent to a
Try telneting to the SMTP port (25) to make certain it isn't blocked.
Your ISP may be blocking port 25 (most of them are these days).
i.e. telnet mail.yourdomain.com 25
or by ip
telnet xx.xxx.xxx.xx 25
Jeff
Larry Azlin wrote:
Greetings.
I run Xmail 1.21 on a SUSE 9.0 box to host my
Hi John -
I use clamSMTP - it is c based proxy that is very lightweight and easy
to use. I also use ASSP in front of this for anti-spam (so sender -
ASSP - clamSMTP - XMail - sendee). As it turns out, after testing,
the emails didn't even reach my anti-virus because ASSP blocked all of
the
. I
prefer it over Spam Assassin myself.
Jeff
John Kielkopf wrote:
Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hi John -
I use clamSMTP - it is c based proxy that is very lightweight and easy
to use. I also use ASSP in front of this for anti-spam (so sender -
ASSP - clamSMTP - XMail - sendee). As it turns
with this number of users some people want mail from
Costco and some people don't, so there is no perfect solution.
Jeff
John Kielkopf wrote:
Jeff Buehler wrote:
I simply disallow email of greater than 5 mb (that was my cutoff
exactly!) - email is not ideal for large file transfers
I like the 3d look myself, so
http://www.fonsy.com/XMail_IAN88x31.2.jpg; is also my vote. It's also
relatively easy to read at a small size, and uses elements of the
original logo so that brand recognition is maintained.
Jeff
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Rob Arends wrote:
I remember this topic too. The only thing I thought strange at the
time, and still do, is that many users of 1.21 are not affected by this
problem at all (myself being an example), and so there must be something
related in the systems of those who do have the problem. I am not
saying any of
Hmmm - thats interesting. The only aspect of your configuration that I
have no experience with is SmartDNSHost pointing to another system for
DNS resolution - I have never used SmartDNSHost. Have you tried turning
that off? Have you tried pointing it to another DNS server, such as one
Hmmm - so far, you two are the only ones that are verified as having the
exact same problem sending to Yahoo and Hotmail - there may be others,
but we haven't verified that, is that correct? You both have the same
configuration (exactly, as Edinilson pointed out). So what do we know
so far?
What would you look for in a tcpdump like this? I am technical (years
of c/c++/PHP/Perl programming) but I am clueless about tcpdumps...
pardon my ignorance!
Jeff
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
On 02.09.2005 17:07, Davide Libenzi wrote:
In the hotmail case, that sure has DNS configured like it
It sounds like first the dump of XMail communications running under Win
2000, to see exactly where the time out or break occurs, and possibly
also a dump of the FreeBSD firewall might help to see if that is part of
the problem. Coordinating them might be a good idea so you can see the
same
interference
and I'll see what I can do on a packet trace.
Rob :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 1:50 AM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: messages to yahoo and or hotmail does
: the SmartDNSHost is inside my PIX firewall, so there is nothing but
LAN between the two servers.
Rob :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 12:50 AM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: messages
Hi all -
I could find no reference to this anywhere - I occasionally have senders
that send, and the email does not stop sending, like a SPAM bomb, but
these are valid senders. I assumed the first couple of times that it
was something in the remote server configuration causing this, but this
starting to wonder ...
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
On 07.09.2005 19:57, Jeff Buehler wrote:
I could find no reference to this anywhere - I occasionally have senders
that send, and the email does not stop sending, like a SPAM bomb, but
these are valid senders. I assumed the first couple of times
How does ASSP flake out - I haven't had any problems with ASSP
(running on FreeBSD 5.x, anyway). ASSP is the best solution I have found.
Jeff
Digerati Isabaddass wrote:
I am not sure if this got through the first time so here goes again.
What can I use that will not cost anything to
I would look more closely at what is causing the problem with ASSP and
continue to use that. I like it much better than Spam Assassin myself,
at least for use with XMail. It is far more efficient since it handles
the SPAM check in the SMTP session then closes it after a specified
number of
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeff Buehler
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:12 PM
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: stopping spam
I would look more closely at what is causing the problem with ASSP and
continue to use that. I like it much better than Spam Assassin myself,
at least for use
The risk of someone bothering to parse packets and retrieve your
passwords in order to gain access to user email is, I think, extremely
small unless you have information that people really want to read, in
which case it is easy to do.
In other words, almost anyone can get a password from
It would be nice to get SSL working with XMail - if I can get some time
together today, Ross, I will try compiling the SSL patch for XMail 1.21
under FreeBSD 5.4, and see if I can get it working.
Jeff
Alexander Hagenah wrote:
Am 9.9.2005 schrieb Sönke Ruempler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes i
Well, that was easy! It compiled and linked without difficulty on my
FreeBSD 5.4 platform. My openssl is version 0.9.7e, however ... try
upgrading to that and see if you have better luck...
Jeff
Ross Gohlke wrote:
I have tried to install the patch linked from the XMail homepage:
By the way, while it is possible, I think the likelihood of spammers
going to the effort to retrieve packets to use your server for spamming
is extremely low. I have never heard of anyone going to the effort to
sniff packets simply to spam on commercial servers - none of the big
commercial
On FreeBSD there is a port of stunnel: /usr/ports/security/stunnel
Jeff
Ross Gohlke wrote:
Alas, I'm on FreeBSD! Is there Linux stunnel?
PGP would protect the mail itself, but is a separate issue from securing
SMTP Auth, no? What I'm trying to do right now is protect the ACCOUNT
but extremely
large messages. However, if you are processing a lot of email, and
especially allowing large attachments and the like, overall you may feel
the burn!
Jeff
Ross Gohlke wrote:
Jeff Buehler wrote:
By the way, while it is possible, I think the likelihood of spammers
going
So, when you receive mail some email is lost - the logs say that mail
came in correctly but it is not in the Domains - MailDir - new folder
and when you send email some mail is lost - the logs say that it was
sent correctly, but it never arrives at the recipient email account -
and this
Hi Charlie -
Well, I'm uncertain what to tell you. My suspicion, since I have heard
of no one having this particular sort of problem (there is a large XMail
user base running 1.21 on Linux) is that there is something being
overlooked. I would double check your findings as scientifically as
The forum is an excellent resource, if sometimes challenging to get
through (lots of info and search doesn't always cut it)...
http://xmailforum.homelinux.net/
Charlie Qualls wrote:
Hey there Jeff,
Thanks for your thinking this out for me. I'll see what else I can
find. I know that large
Here is another verification that it builds fine on FreeBSD 5.4. I
haven't tried running it yet.
Jeff
Davide Libenzi wrote:
I might have found the reason for the XMail erratic behaviour on some BSDs
versions. I need Solaris and *BSD users to try to build and run the
following version:
Hi All -
it seems to me that this may have been covered, but I wasn't able to
find any XMail specific references to it:
Sending to Earthlink, my customers are getting a number of seemingly
intermittent errros as follows:
550-EarthLink does not recognize your computer (67.102.229.138) as
Hi all -
Let me try that last question without the other info: Does anyone know
if XMail 1.22 queries A records when MX queries for a domain have
failed? I realize this has been covered, but I'm not clear on the
specific outcome of this ...
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Oct 2005, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Let me try that last question without the other info: Does anyone know
if XMail 1.22 queries A records when MX queries for a domain have
failed? I realize this has been covered, but I'm not clear on the
specific outcome of this ...
Yes, of course it does
the mechanism here...
Thanks again for your input on this!
Jeff
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Let me try that last question without the other info: Does anyone know
if XMail 1.22 queries A records when MX queries for a domain have
failed? I realize
Also, check out clamsmtp if you aren't running Windows - I'm not certain
if it is faster than the available XMail filters (which I have had mixed
luck with over the years), but it is easy to setup and works well for
me... it is very lightweight and written in C.
Jeff
jonn ah wrote:
hi all,
Hi all -
I am using the cmdaliases functionality to forward certain emails to an
Exchange 2003 Server. I would like to disable general SMTP for the
Exchange server and force authentication. Does anyone know of a way to
authenticate the SMTP session when forwarding an email via a cmdalias?
Sönke, thanks again! That will do the trick ...
Jeff
Sönke Ruempler wrote:
Hi Jeff,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:09
AM:
I am using the cmdaliases functionality to forward certain
emails to an
Exchange 2003 Server. I would like to disable general SMTP for
Who cares about the law? What about your own sense of moral
culpability? Sure, it's your job, and it's hard to tell your paycheck
to f-off, but spying on people is spying on people. Life is short and
there are a lot of ways to make money - the one thing you can keep to
the grave is your
...
Jeff Buehler wrote:
Who cares about the law? What about your own sense of moral
culpability? Sure, it's your job, and it's hard to tell your paycheck
to f-off, but spying on people is spying on people. Life is short and
there are a lot of ways to make money - the one thing you can keep
I prefer rsync of the entire MailRoot directory to another system, but
you could as easily rsync to an alternate media source on the same
system. By using rsync, you can run it often since rsync operates
incrementally (only the portions of files that have changed are
replicated). I run it
Hi everyone -
Running XMail 1.22 my users have been reporting that No server found
errors are coming back in duplicate. The mails all come in after The
maximum number of delivery attempts has been reached and the user
receives a separate email for each failed delivery attempt, rather than
has been reached]
Jeff
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Hi everyone -
Running XMail 1.22 my users have been reporting that No server found
errors are coming back in duplicate. The mails all come in after The
maximum number of delivery attempts has been reached
:bogusdomain.com [bogusdomain.com]
[02] The reason of the delivery failure was:
The maximum number of delivery attempts has been reached
Thanks again for any thoughts or ideas...
Jeff
Jeff Buehler wrote:
Ah ... I was unaware of that setting. It's commented out, which
according to the documentation
think of anything that may have changed between
1.20/1.21 and 1.22 that might affect this?
Jeff
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Jeff Buehler wrote:
Ah ... I was unaware of that setting. It's commented out, which
according to the documentation would seem to suggest
failure) follow:
From: buehlertech.net PostMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:03 PM
To: Jeff Buehler
Subject: Error sending message
[1137780666750.135234560.3ee.banshee.buehlertech.net] from
[buehlertech.net]
[00] XMail bounce: [EMAIL PROTECTED];Error=[The maximum number
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Jeff Buehler wrote:
I see. Any thoughts on what my be causing the repeat error bounces?
Has anyone else run into this problem?
If not, I would guess it has to do with the Exchange/ASSP/XMail
relationship somehow since that is the only distinct thing about my
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
