On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:53 +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> No. bl.spamcop.net doesn't list dynamic IPs, it lists (puported) spam
> sources. Ditto for the Spamhaus XBL. Your user's problem is that their
> IP has sent spam, not that they have a dynamic IP.
And it's also worth pointing out that the "pr
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 17:58 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Is there a command that you can run in the quit/notquit to determine
> what the final code sent was? If it was a 220 or a 421 or a 550? Is that
> stored in a variable?
You're talking about incoming messages, presumably, as you're talking
ab
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:37 +0100, Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> I used 6 RBL's as total blocks on my servers. I want to be able to have one
> of those (2 actual zones) do "direct lookups" instead of using normal DNS
> processes while the other 4 function normally. Is this possible please ?
> (
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 13:18 +0200, Marcin Krol wrote:
> 550-Verification failed for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 550-Unrouteable address
> 550 Sender verify failed
Your made-up domain isn't routeable; this will be caused by whichever
router (dnslookup?) processes domains external to your system.
The err
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 11:46 -0400, John Jetmore wrote:
> I have very limited experience with Exim filters. I've mostly use
> procmail and the times I've used filters it's Just Worked. But now I'm
> feeling a little confused. According to my reading all of these should be
> equal:
>
>
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 15:31 +0200, Craig wrote:
> Has anyone on the list managed to get EXIM talking to Exchange on TLS with
> SMTP AUTH.
More than likely... but reading on, I don't believe that's what you want
(at least, not that way round).
> We are using manual routes to forward mail directly
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 18:19 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Did you read what you quoted? They think their product does not need
> fixing as it is working as designed.
And they're correct. Putting on my Devil's Advocate cloak for a moment,
just imagine the following design discussion (which assumes rea
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 18:48 +0100, T. Horsnell wrote:
> We're trying to switch to using NIS tables
> during SMTP authentication, but cant get
> anything to work. We dont really understand
> how one is supposed to use the nis lookup
Neither do I :)
You could do worse, however, than allow your OS t
Hi
The answer to your question is in your debug output :)
> drop: condition test failed
> end of ACL "domeny_acl_smtp_connect": implicit DENY
> SMTP>> 550 Administrative prohibition
The "implicit DENY" part is the giveaway. Your ACL does not have an
"accept" clause; when an ACL is defined, by de
On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 11:59 -0700, Wil wrote:
> Can anyone help me to iron out my helo rules? I have spent countless hours
> and have learned simply that if it ain't one problem it is another.
...and the problem is what, exactly? You seem to have a fairly
comprehensive set of rules there. Are the
...and has therefore been moderated.
When you get round to it, Mr Das, please remove exim-users@exim.org from
any social networking sites you might have added it to. This is a
mailing list for technical discussions about Exim, not somewhere to talk
about... well, you know how social networking wor
On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 08:15 +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Errm. § 40.8 says (about the QUIT ACL) that "You do not need to have a final
> accept", and logically the same should apply to the not-QUIT ACL. It's only
> explicit denys that are forbidden (at least by the implementation). And by
> th
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 15:28 +0100, Alun wrote:
> This is all done now and works according to plan. My question, which
> started this off, was whether it was possible, from the embedded perl
> interpreter, to identify the file descriptor of the socket that's
> connected to the remote host. Tom confi
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 16:11 +0100, Chris Edwards wrote:
> As you know, Alun's talking about SMTP connections to hosts which are not
> supposed to receive external mail. My reading is there are two cases:
>
> - Where the recipient email address corresponds to some host
> under *.aber.ac.uk, th
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 15:22 -0400, Tom Ray [Lists] wrote:
> Compared and it seems the drop in traffic is legit. What I have in my
> inbox is what is in the archives. So the answer is that no ones replied
> to my previous messages.
It's perhaps a coincidence, but the drop in list traffic does cor
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 09:36 +1100, Ted Cooper wrote:
> It took out the mailing list too ;) The same server was completely
> unreachable for the day so I'm guessing they did some sort of maintenace
> or had a catastrophic failure. Haven't seen or heard anything though.
Ah, the joys of backup MX. I
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 08:13 -0400, Shine, Gary wrote:
> -rw-r- 1 exim exim 357276672 Nov 1 12:11 retry.pag
> -rw-r- 1 exim exim 40960 Nov 1 09:09 wait-remote_smtp.dir
> -rw-r- 1 exim exim 0 Jan 22 2007
> wait-remote_smtp.lockfile
> -rw-r- 1
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 04:24 -0700, ikearns wrote:
> However any mail that does get through that is destined for a resolvable
> email address will then be delivered to the back end server(s) via and Exim
> box running manualroutes. Should this message be undeliverable (through the
> mailbox not exis
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:59 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Am using RedHat Enterprise AS release 4. Would appreciate it if someone can
> > assist, I need this package ASAP.
>
> Why don't you follow the link that Peter posted? It prominently
> features RHEL4.
...and if you can cope with an earlier v
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 12:11 +, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> 2 other alternatives :-
>
> Hardware loadbalancer (such as Alteon or F5)
>
> Linux as a loadbalancer - there are various iptables options that can be
> used to loadbalance connections, though I'm not sure how well these work if
> one of y
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 12:29 +0100, Marcin Krol wrote:
> Could this work? Pros? Cons?
Forwarding services, of which there are literally hundreds of thousands,
will be broken since the envelope-from will differ from the incoming
hostname (however you work it out).
Domestic users - millions of them
On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 17:45 +0100, Oscar Mas wrote:
> I use exim4 with split configuration. When a user send a mail to my
> server he say:
>
> 2007-11-23 17:22:41 rejected EHLO from [217.116.29.3]: syntactically
> invalid argument(s): domain_domain.net
helo_allow_chars = _
Graeme
--
## List
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 05:42 -0800, sal983 wrote:
> When sending mails from our exim mail server to yahoo getting the following
> error message and sometimes yahoo allowing the mails to deliver to "spam"
> folder.
>
> "2007-11-27 17:00:07 1Ix7Wm-0004RS-DZ == [EMAIL PROTECTED] R=external
> T=remote_
Hi
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:39 -0500, B. Cook wrote:
> I am allowing another departments Exchange server to relay out via our
> exim server.
>
> Their exchange server is (by default) setup to accept all messages to [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> and then bounce the names that do not exist.
This is
[I can't speak for the developer team, so this is my personal take]
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 11:38 +, David Restall - System Administrator
wrote:
> I noticed Marc Perkel's post a few weeks ago about the ongoing life
> of Exim and he was swiftly diverted to exim-dev. There isn't much on
> there a
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:57 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Having a small issue.
>
> set acl_c_rdns = ${lookup dnsdb{ptr=$sender_host_address}{$value}{}}
>
> Works except that if the lookup fails I get DEFER. What I want is if the
> lookup fails to get an empty string. What am I doing wrong?
Well.
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 15:28 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Getting error "Too many arguments in command .. in ${run} expansion"
How about you give us some detail of what your ${run} expansion is?
Graeme
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details a
Hi, list subscribers
Before someone kicks off another great debate over politeness (I can see
the dust clouds on the horizon already) I'd like to ask, on behalf of
the moderators, that everyone (including me!):
a) Asks sensible questions. See
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html for
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:42 +0100, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
> Sure, but it signs always the "Received", too... And this IS altered, of
> course, by every MTA...
So that's a daft header to use for signing, then!
> Has someone a solution for this problem? Otherwise it has the same problem of
> SPF,
On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 19:33 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> How about it Graeme? You're pretty good that this.
I could make the same request of you, Marc. Why not?
Graeme
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use
On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 23:48 +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
> Isn't this leading to many false positives?
That's a semantic argument not related to Exim (or, indeed, the
operation of any other MTA). If David's local policy is to reject
messages sent by hosts listed in the DNSBLs he lists, that's his
d
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 05:31 +, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Ermm, no, it almost certainly isn't. Not unless, for reasons best known
> to yourself, you've configued it to listen on port 80.
I recall a problem in my previous dayjob whereby Exim being called by
PHP from a web page on an extremely
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 15:34 +0100, zbigniew szalbot wrote:
> I have a lot of mailman bounces destined for an admin address (my
> error). I would like to delete them from queue (no need to send them).
> How do I do that? I can delete a single message using -Mrm option but
> can anyone share how t
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 18:06 +, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> So this sounds like the Apache / mod_php bug referred to in the Debian
> bug that Marc H posted earlier in the thread
Ah, it's all come back to me now.
Don't run PHP via mod_php. If you want security, isolation and some
semblance of con
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 12:30 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> I've seen several instances over the past few years where I've had to
> disable user accounts here because of backscatter. This isn't simply a
> theoretical problem.
Just to add to this (before ducking back down below the top of this
handy
George
Please consider subscribing to the list first so any replies to the list
are not held up waiting for moderation (by me or one of the other
moderators).
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 11:27 -0800, George wrote:
> I'm using the following ACL to drop incorrect HELO names:
>
> deny condition = ${i
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 14:01 -0800, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> If I grep 587 /etc/services I find:
> submission 587/tcp # Submission [RFC2476]
And if you look at the official IANA port allocations you'll find:
urd 465/tcpURL Rendesvous Directory for SSM
(a
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 04:29 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Can't we have the following error stop the message in its tracks,
> >> instead of sending still to half the recipients?
> >> ==
> >> A message that you sent contained one or more recipient addresses that
> >> were incorre
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 23:32 +0100, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Other question was - but probably it's implementation dependend - how
> the sender would behave. Does anybody know what exim would do. Restart
> the SMTP transfer with agin all 300+ recipients if recipient 300 times
> out? Or would exi
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 10:37 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> It's not in the documentation. That's why I asked the question.
As with many questions asked on this list, the answer is in several
places in the docs. If you look back at the high-level overview you'll
find:
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-cu
I've thought long and hard about typing and posting this, because I know
that some people will be upset when they read it - I have tried my
damnedest to remain objective and impersonal about this issue, so if
anyone finds any part of this objectionable please ensure that you read
the whole thing fo
Peter
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 14:15 +0200, Peter Kirk wrote:
> The emails are all the same and are product updates to clients, it's a
> small mail really, just a few k and all to different email
> addresses.
OK, so we'll work with not changing your sending application then :)
You don't say wh
Damn, it was late, and I forgot to change the recipient list. So here it
is as a forwarded message,
Must... sleep...
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 12:38 -0800, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Someone had the bright idea that those pesky disclaimers at the bottom
> of emails are a good thin
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 06:11 -0800, Bleurgh wrote:
> I dont need or want to know how it works. All I need to know is what to put
> into my exim config so that all hosts are rejected other than authenticated
> users and a couple of other IP's. I'm sure thats not complicated for
> someone who is expe
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 22:02 +0100, Jonathan GF wrote:
> What i tried to state in the previous mail is that, even if the smarthost
> works, and the server behind works also, the bold lines shows an anormal
> activity.
If you're posting in HTML, don't - all your formatting is stripped by
the list's
To coin the approach of one W.B.Hacker...
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:14 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> A lot of NAT devices can be configured that way.
Can be. Aren't. Won't be.
[sorry, Bill!]
In this case, Yves was experiencing a single problem with a single user
(himself), and had some control over
Hi Randy
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:49 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> Software caused connection abort
I think you're going to have to give us a bit more context than that :)
Can you extract some relevant log entries from around one of these?
"Software caused connection abort" is ECONNABORTED, error 1
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 18:58 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> I am able to test IMAP Properly with telnet,but still cant see the message
> in horde,though i can see the message count there...
I suspect you'll get more help from the Horde mailing lists;
specifically, in your case, for IMP:
http://lists
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 14:37 +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> When replacing a mail server, what is the best way to get rid of the
> emails in the queue of the old server?
Build the new one, put it online and then create a manualroute router on
the old server to punt all your old queued mail off to the
Hi Zlatko
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 16:27 +0200, Zlatko Mesaros wrote:
> I am trying to figure out the way to reject the users during the SMTP
> dialog rather then send bounce messages.
> Actually - I would like to reply with '550 User does not exist' if the
> RCPT yields no valid user.
You're almo
Zlatko
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 15:55 +0200, Zlatko Mesaros wrote:
> Debug run will follow, and here are the routers:
OK, great - please consider subscribing to the mailing list so that your
posts don't get held for moderation.
My hunch was right:
> amavis:
> driver = manualroute
>
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 09:37 +, Dave Evans wrote:
> Add "no_verify" to that router. I think that'll fix it.
Aye, it will. Ignore my suggestion, it was far too early on a Sunday for
mentioning things to do with local parts and domains :)
Much simpler to make the other routers do the verificati
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 11:05 +0200, Zlatko Mesaros wrote:
> # MODIFIED PART
> deny!verify= recipient/callout=2m,defer_ok
> # END MODIFIED PART
You need to add a qualifier in there to ensure it's only doing the call
forward for *your* domains. Without that, you run the risk of bein
Jason
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 15:30 +, Jason_Meers wrote:
> The following variables don't expand as expected and generate an error
> for me:
> $received_port
> $received_ip_address
Changed in 4.64 to those values, per NewStuff-4.64:
http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.csx.cam.ac.uk/pub/sof
Hi
Firstly, please don't SHOUT. Using all capitals is construed by many as
somewhat rude :)
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:29 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> I HAVE INSTALLED EXIM 4.66-5 AND WHEN EVER I TRY TO START THE SERVICE WITH
> /usr/sbin/service exim start IT THROWS MESSAGE : "SERVICE: UNRECOGNIZED
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 18:52 +0100, Peter Velan wrote:
> ... Dear MS-Admin, you don't have to know what you are doing, if you are
> still able to: "click here, expand folder xyz, right-click this tab,
> check this box, etc. To be an administrator of a MS-server is as easy as
> 1-2-3!"
>
> Ooomph! S
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 09:42 +0100, Peter Velan wrote:
> Yes you are right: This kind of click-clack (without any knowledge about
> the background mechanism) exists on non-Microsoft systems too! But I
> never saw such kind of "documentation" in the *primary* literature for
> Exim, Sendmail, Postfix
Hi
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 12:55 +0100, Yves Goergen wrote:
> 1) When a message comes in for a mailbox that doesn't exist (unknown
> user), the message doesn't seem to be rejected at first instance but a
> bounce mail is generated that cannot be delivered and ends up frozen in
> the queue. How ca
Nitin
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 17:40 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> can you tell how to restart exim im using exim version 4.66.
You've been told the answer to this by several other posters already. I
suggest you take a step back, re-read the thread again, and try out what
people are suggesting. Repeat
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:48 +0100, Yves Goergen wrote:
> I don't know anybody who really cares about that RFC postmaster account.
Well... there's a lot that can be said about this, but it's been said
elsewhere so I'll leave that argument for another time.
> My idea was, letting the initial SMTP
Hi
Firstly, please keep the bitching off the list, gentlemen. Take it
somewhere else.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 17:13 +0100, Yves Goergen wrote:
> So as you were so kind to squal on me, do you have any solid reasons why
> today (in the year 2008) anybody would need a postmaster mailbox?
Because "[E
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:25 +, W B Hacker wrote:
> By stupidly listing entire *countries* rfc-ignorant does do harm. More
> harm than good.
Note: I'm not tub-thumping on anyone's behalf here, I am merely trying
to proffer an objective POV...
They publish their listing criteria. They operate
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:24 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I have an unusual situation. I have a customer that I'm spam filtering
> for.
First things first: educate the customer as to why what they are is
wrong. Simply put, they should 5xx the invalid recipients, not 450 them.
> Their server howeve
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 22:05 +, Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> > As it stands, .de (amongst others) have chosen to deviate - for their
> > own specific reasons - from RFC3912 and have, therefore, been listed in
> > whois.rfc-ignorant.org. Many other ccTLDs are the same, as well as many
> > SLDs.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 22:47 +, Steve Dobson wrote:
> I have a standard exim4/SA setup.
I have to ask: standard *how*?
It looks to me like you're using MailScanner or AMaViS (the existence of
the "spam-scanned" protocol lines give that away); both of these are
fairly old-fashioned nowadays, gi
Hi
Please keep replies on-list.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 23:31 +, Steve Dobson wrote:
> > I have to ask: standard *how*?
>
> Exim is the ETA with SpamAssassin doing the checking (via spamc) and the
> following transport:
> spamassassin_delivery:
> driver= pipe
> command
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 12:27 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> I have downloaded exim-4.69-33.src.rpm and want to install it .Can anyone
> please guide me the steps how to proceed installation on RH 4.0.
up2date -i exim
It's part of the RHEL distribution - it's an older version, but it
should (as Nigel
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 12:34 +0100, Sebastian Berm wrote:
> Does anyone perhaps have a howto or guide on how to implement this? -
See my mail earlier in this thread.
> I've never seen SA working with Exim ACL's directly before...
> It seems like an idea worth investigating.
It is. It's been arou
Chas
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 10:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm curious about this same subject and the way that Exim deals with it.
> Is Exim accepting and then delivering back a message to whom it believes
> to be the original sender or denying the message before receiving it.
I think th
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 08:57 +, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> Not a clue - appears to be a domain registered in the hope of picking
> up traffic for people thinking about Export/Import (ie like the Exim
> Bank that sometimes turns up).
Not that this is really Exim (our Exim) related, but you'
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:18 +0100, Clemens Haupt wrote:
> Thank you for answering but none of my questions are answered by this :-((
You asked originally:
On 25 Feb 2008, at 07:36, Clemens Haupt wrote:
> Is there anybody who can tell me the name and the address
> of the author of exim.info or eho
Nitin
This is a moderation message.
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 11:41 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Please find below the completed messages given by exim
> Now there is no user mohit and there is no domain acx..still itz sayin
> completed
Several other posters have asked you to give us a look at
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Annie Kuo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wasn't sure how to search for this, so I'm hoping someone has some insight
> into this.
Let me look in my crystal ball... ;-)
> When I test an incoming email address with id="message6" name="incorrect" class="incorrect">exim -bt -d,
Hi
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:14 +, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> Since the changes were made to the name="incorrect" class="incorrect">config, has Exim been
> restarted? The daemon reads its' name="incorrect" class="incorrect">config once,
Moderator note: although this is a very large message I've let it
through on the grounds that we've been asking Nitin for it all week!
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 15:35 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Hi All
> This is my conf file
Thanks. Perhaps someone will have time to go through this today and see
wha
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 10:19 +0100, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> I know it is not really exim-related but is there anyone else getting
> timeouts from yahoo mail servers?
This is a matter of some concern in several other areas that I keep a
watching brief on, mainly US and UK academia. If you look up
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 11:48 +0100, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> Where can I see it? I do not know where the archvies you mention are,
> unless this is at exim.org?
http://listserv.nd.edu/archives/hied-emailadmin.html
> Out of curiousity, we have not implemented DKIM because we use SPF and
> I though
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 12:15 +0100, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> Thanks, it is a pity it is pass-protected.
Erm... I don't think it is - at least, I can view the archives without
being logged in. I haven't got any cookies hiding away, either, for the
domain in question.
Graeme
--
## List details a
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 11:40 +0100, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> As per recent discussion I accidentally come across a similar topic
> http://forums.atjeu.com/showthread.php?t=434
>
> I'd be interested what you think about the CPanel official remarks re
> exim. And Marc - they give a link to some bulk
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 14:09 +0100, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
> I tried to log a session to file for later analysis (console does not
> allow me to see all of the session) so I tried:
>
> exim -d -M MESSAGE_ID > my.log
>
> This created my.log file but nothing was writtnen to it. Many thanks for
> a
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 14:06 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Does anyone know what would cause Exim to segfault with Error 4? What is
> error 4?
/usr/include/asm-generic/errno-base.h
Graeme
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 15:02 +0200, Gregory Machin wrote:
> I'm trying to subscribe to a list from a valid that I use every day what have
> I done wrong ? or mis configured in my attempt to block spam ..
Looks to me like the 30 or 60 second delay after RCPT TO: is partially
to blame; it took a ver
Hi
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 15:04 -0500, Matt wrote:
> My understanding of what this does. If the source email address
> domain is hosted on the same box it just checks if it exists. If its
> not hosted on the same box it just does a "dig domain mx". Is that
> right?
No. You posted the answer to
Hi
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 15:58 -0500, Matt wrote:
> In resolvr.conf I just have 127.0.0.1 and am running bind 9.2.4 now.
> Does it just do a dig mx and if answer is not 0 call it good or does
> it do more then that?
No, Exim doesn't do a "dig". It does the _same thing_ as dig (since dig
is basica
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 21:19 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> What stat tools specifically? Yes, I think I'm IO bound. I think it's
> the number of connections and the TCP stack that's slowing me down.
You have a single SATA II drive. They (mostly) don't support TCQ (Tagged
Command Queueing) so access
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 11:18 +, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> I'm really getting my money's worth out of this thread.
I'm not sure the rest of us are, Martin. I'm pretty bored of it now, to
be honest.
Those of you interested in discussing the finer points of mail
operations would do well to join t
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 09:42 -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
> What I need to know, is how did the original message (log line 1) get into my
> server at all? How can I beef up the loggin to tell me if it was a localy
> generated message, or if Ihave a hacked account. (password 'guessed').?
The original
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:03 -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
> So how do I figure out HOW it came to my server to begin with?
Work back a bit further - the entries you show are from your Mailscanner
or Amavis config.
Whoa! That'll be "accept and bounce" right there, then... add a
"no_verify" line to the
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 11:46 +0200, Gregory Machin wrote:
> But from the get go I'm getting the following errors
>
> 2008-03-18 11:09:05 Exim configuration error in line 122 of
> /etc/exim/exim.conf:
> main option "acl_connect" unknown
You probably don't have a "begin acl" line before your first
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 07:02 +, Jason Cornell wrote:
> I will be out of the office starting 19/03/2008 and will not return until
> 20/03/2008.
Nice.
You'll not be seeing any more messages from this list for a while as
your subscription is now set to "nomail", because vacation messages
should
Hi
Look! I'm responding to the original question, not getting involved in
an argument. Woo!
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 19:35 +, Tom Brown wrote:
> I wonder what people think for a RAID level for their mail stores?
It depends entirely on circumstance. That circumstance comprises
hardware, number o
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 12:11 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> I'd agree, but for those who write the checks the cheapness of (s)ata is
> hard to resist. It's very unlikely the savings weigh up against the
> increased reliability of scsi, but as with many things, money talks.
In this and my previou
Hi
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 12:08 -0400, Haines Brown wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. The question I was getting at is that I
> have no procmail, sendmail or maildrop. Does that mean I have no MTA
> at all, or does exim handle the transport?
Technically you probably don't have an MTA as such;
Hi
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 17:21 -0500, Robert Nicholson wrote:
> In my setup I have a file that contains the valid users for my domain
> and any mail to any other user than those should be binned immediately.
That would be great... apart from:
> Can anybody tell me how in my .forward (note I on
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 21:43 -0400, Haines Brown wrote:
> Graeme, thanks for pointing me to the solution of my problem.
No problem... I'll chop and change the order of your email a bit here.
> It never occurred to me to set up authentication manually. But I had
> done it before and forgotten that
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 11:03 +0200, Gregory Machin wrote:
> ok so if I understand the info on the link the following should work
Nope.
You need to define the list at the start of the config like so:
domainlist domains_we_reject = *.foo.com : *.bar.com : \
*.other.com :\
*.someotherdomain.net
The
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:37 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Or is there a way to access a server directly, automatically, when a
> load balancer fails? Maybe I am missing some obvious things.
You are :)
If you're using Linux boxes, and you have only two - forgetting for a
moment the obvious issu
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:27 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'm seeing something interesting. In the HELO acl if I issue a DENY I'm
> seeing servers doing a retry of the HELO. Is this normal?
Yes, perfectly. It's termed a "woodpecker". There are multiple records
of badly written mail applications ham
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 13:35 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Most of what I'm seeing are spammers. Is there legit email that does
> this? Or is this just viruses?
Note that I said "badly written mail applications". That covers the
whole gamut of tripe-spewing crap you might find stuck on the sole of
y
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 17:54 +0100, Searcher wrote:
> So I just want a simple MX check (if the incoming IP is the MX for the
> domain)
...which won't get you much; many operations use a completely different
set of IP addresses at least, if not machines, for outbound messages as
compared to inbound.
1 - 100 of 882 matches
Mail list logo
