works fine after your advice. thank you very much.
FEATURE(`access_db')
FEATURE(`blacklist_recipients')
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Claus Assmann wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2013, Trond Endrest?l wrote:
[freebsd-hackers doesn't seem like the appropriate list...]
FEATURE(access_db, `hash -o -T /etc/mai
eebsd.mc should be changed as well:
> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/9/etc/sendmail/freebsd.mc?revision=249867&view=markup
That default was probably chosen so the MTA does not complain
if the map doesn't exist.
Of course that doesn't work so well if you really want to use
the
ot specify arguments that are default.
> FEATURE(`access_db')
> is the best choice.
Then I guess the defaults in freebsd.mc should be changed as well:
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/9/etc/sendmail/freebsd.mc?revision=249867&view=markup
> > One final(?) note: You might n
On Fri, May 24, 2013, Trond Endrest?l wrote:
[freebsd-hackers doesn't seem like the appropriate list...]
> > FEATURE(access_db, `hash -o -T /etc/mail/access')
Do NOT use -o. Moreover, do not specify arguments that are default.
FEATURE(`access_db')
is the best choice.
> One final(?) note: You mi
ld REJECT
> >
> > tried too.
> >
> > doesn't work.
>
> Make sure you edit the /etc/mail/access file, not the
> /etc/mail/access.db file.
>
> The latter is a hashmap used by sendmail for rapid lookup. The former
> is the source used to generate the /etc/
/access file, not the
/etc/mail/access.db file.
The latter is a hashmap used by sendmail for rapid lookup. The former
is the source used to generate the /etc/mail/access.db file.
Sendmail will never read the /etc/mail/access file.
Don't forget to run the make command afterwards to update th
.0:550 Address invalid
>>
>>
>> I was wrong again, sorry, but I believe I got it right this time:
>>
>> 1. Edit the /etc/mail/access file.
>>
>> 2. Insert a line like this one:
>>
>> To:mail...@some.domain.tld REJECT
>
>
> tried too.
http://www.sendmail.com/sm/open_source/docs/m4/features.html
Maybe a line like this one will help you achieve your goal:
j...@bar.comerror:5.7.0:550 Address invalid
I was wrong again, sorry, but I believe I got it right this time:
1. Edit the /etc/mail/access file.
2. Insert a line like
)
in wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl.mc
did
make
make install
/etc/rc.d/sendmail restart
and tried to send mail to woj...@3miasto.net.pl
mail is not blocked
any more ideas? thank you!
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/ma
On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:19+0200, Trond Endrestøl wrote:
> My bad, take a look at the /etc/mail/genericstable file:
>
> http://www.sendmail.com/sm/open_source/docs/m4/features.html
>
> Maybe a line like this one will help you achieve your goal:
>
> j...@bar.com error:5.7.0:550 Address invalid
I
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:55+0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > >
> > > To:x...@y.pl REJECT
> > >
> > > doesn't work
> > >
> > > any idea. thank you
> >
> > Don't use /etc/mail/access, use /etc/mail/aliases.
> >
> > E.g.:
> >
> > x: /dev/null
>
> x is NOT on my server. it will not work.
>
> al
To:x...@y.pl REJECT
doesn't work
any idea. thank you
Don't use /etc/mail/access, use /etc/mail/aliases.
E.g.:
x: /dev/null
x is NOT on my server. it will not work.
all i want is when someone send a mail from my server to x...@y.pl (which is
someone else domain) it will not get ther
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:33+0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> how to redirect recipient address. i mean - if someone try to send to
> x...@y.pl
> from serwer then it should be redirected to local account, while the rest of
> mails to domain @y.pl should get out normally.
>
> alternatively outgoing ma
ely outgoing mail to x...@y.pl should be rejected.
>
>
> tried access.db -
>
> To:x...@y.pl REJECT
>
> doesn't work
>
>
> any idea. thank you
Try a sendmail list?
Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
how to redirect recipient address. i mean - if someone try to send to
x...@y.pl from serwer then it should be redirected to local account, while
the rest of mails to domain @y.pl should get out normally.
alternatively outgoing mail to x...@y.pl should be rejected.
tried access.db -
To:x...@y
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 4 December 2012 21:23, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Reference:
From: Eitan Adler
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:58:20 -0500
Message-id:
>>>
>
On 5 December 2012 07:02, Peter Wemm wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>> On 4 December 2012 21:23, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Eitan Adler
> Date: Tue, 4 De
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 21:23, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Reference:
>>> From: Eitan Adler
>>> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:58:20 -0500
>>> Message-id:
>>>
>>
>> Eitan Adler wrote:
>>> On 4 December 2012 20:21, Julian H. Stac
On 4 December 2012 21:23, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Hi,
> Reference:
>> From: Eitan Adler
>> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:58:20 -0500
>> Message-id:
>>
>
> Eitan Adler wrote:
>> On 4 December 2012 20:21, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>> > At Wed Dec 5 02:16:29 CET 2012 the web ref fai
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Eitan Adler
> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:58:20 -0500
> Message-id:
>
Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 20:21, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > At Wed Dec 5 02:16:29 CET 2012 the web ref fails:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=17
On 4 December 2012 20:21, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> At Wed Dec 5 02:16:29 CET 2012 the web ref fails:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=174108
> There is no bug in the bin category beyond 174103
This is a known issue. I'm not sure what is causing it.
Your bug made it (check t
> There is a missing double quote " in
> 8.3 & 9.0 & 9.1RC2 src/etc/sendmail/freebsd.mc
> 8.2-RELEASE & earlier are OK.
> I will send-pr unless I hear otherwise.
I sent a patch, & received this
Message-id: <201212041520.qb4fk0pn030...@freefall.freebs
Hi hack...@freebsd.org
There is a missing double quote " in
8.3 & 9.0 & 9.1RC2 src/etc/sendmail/freebsd.mc
8.2-RELEASE & earlier are OK.
Here's a diff -c to .mc
The diff is not to fix it, but to help generate a freebsd.cf to
understand the difference. The patch for
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan McKeown
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:52:25 +0200
Subject: Re: sendmail disabled, but 'service -e' lists it as enabled
> On Wednesday 25 April 2012 20:56:22 Greg Larkin wrote:
> > On 4/25/12 2:09 PM, ra
On Wednesday 25 April 2012 20:56:22 Greg Larkin wrote:
> On 4/25/12 2:09 PM, rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
> > # grep sendmail /etc/rc.conf sendmail_enable="NONE" # service -e |
> > grep sendmail /etc/rc.d/sendmail # ps -U root | grep sendmail
>
> /etc/rc.d/sendmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/25/12 2:09 PM, rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
> # grep sendmail /etc/rc.conf sendmail_enable="NONE" # service -e |
> grep sendmail /etc/rc.d/sendmail # ps -U root | grep sendmail
>
>
> Domagoj Smolčić
Hi Domagoj,
/etc
# grep sendmail /etc/rc.conf
sendmail_enable="NONE"
# service -e | grep sendmail
/etc/rc.d/sendmail
# ps -U root | grep sendmail
Domagoj Smolčić
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-
ldwin wrote:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:22:01 pm Julian Elischer wrote:
>> When I last did sendmail there wasn't any TLS/SSL stuff.
>>
>> has anyone got an exact howto as to how to enable a simple sendmail
>> server?
>>
>> all I want is:
>>
On 11 Oct 2010, at 17:14, John Baldwin wrote:
>> TLS and authenticated email submission by me and my family
>> able to forward the email anywhere (maybe just to my ISP but who
>> knows) (outgoing)
>> non TLS submission from outside to reject all mail not to
>> elischer.{org,com}
>> and deliver
On Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:22:01 pm Julian Elischer wrote:
> When I last did sendmail there wasn't any TLS/SSL stuff.
>
> has anyone got an exact howto as to how to enable a simple sendmail
> server?
>
> all I want is:
>
> TLS and authenticated email submissi
When I last did sendmail there wasn't any TLS/SSL stuff.
has anyone got an exact howto as to how to enable a simple sendmail
server?
all I want is:
TLS and authenticated email submission by me and my family
able to forward the email anywhere (maybe just to my ISP but who
knows) (out
"Matthias Andree" writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > Matthias Andree writes:
> > > sendmail's configuration was never a black art unless you needed
> > > features beyond what the m4 macro set supported.
> > The m4 macro set is a fairly recent development.
> If "more than a decade" is a "f
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote on 2010-03-11:
Matthias Andree writes:
sendmail's configuration was never a black art unless you needed
features beyond what the m4 macro set supported.
The m4 macro set is a fairly recent development.
If "more than a decade" is a "fairly recent development", then
ions.
>
> > 2. Is postfix that much easier?
>
> Yes. However, the black magic in sendmail is very powerful.
>
> > 3. What would people use for:
> > 3.1. POP / IMAP support?
>
> Separate problem. I use dovecot and I like it, but it's just a
> household serve
David Wolfskill writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > Matthias Andree writes:
> > > sendmail's configuration was never a black art unless you needed
> > > features beyond what the m4 macro set supported.
> > The m4 macro set is a fairly recent development.
> I was using it in 1993.
ISTR it
On Thu, 11.03.2010 at 13:54:53 +, Paul Wootton wrote:
Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>> I really wanted to use Sendmail as a friend knows Sendmail fairly well
>> and I have a Sendmail book, but what I am wanting is the ability to have
>> mail for virtual users, ie I might hav
t.
I was using it in 1993. With respect, perspectives as to "never" or
"recent" tend to be subjective. (Some folks on this list may well have
not been born yet in 1993.)
FWIW:
* The FreeBSD.org mail infrastructure uses Postfix. In general, I find
its configuration cleane
Matthias Andree writes:
> sendmail's configuration was never a black art unless you needed
> features beyond what the m4 macro set supported.
The m4 macro set is a fairly recent development.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
freebsd-hackers
Julian H. Stacey wrote:
I really wanted to use Sendmail as a friend knows Sendmail fairly well
and I have a Sendmail book, but what I am wanting is the ability to have
mail for virtual users, ie I might have 4 admin accounts,
ad...@domain1.com ad...@domain2.com ad...@domain3.com and
ad
> I really wanted to use Sendmail as a friend knows Sendmail fairly well
> and I have a Sendmail book, but what I am wanting is the ability to have
> mail for virtual users, ie I might have 4 admin accounts,
> ad...@domain1.com ad...@domain2.com ad...@domain3.com and
> ad...@
According to Steven Hartland:
> 1. Has sendmail's config moved away from the black art
> it once was?
Well, not really. .cf files are still .cf files but most people don't use them
directly (except old farts ;-)). .mc files are the easiest way to configure
sendmail (and of cou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/2010 10:13:21, Paul Wootton wrote:
> Sorry to hi-jack your thread, but this is also something I am currently
> looking in to
>
> I really wanted to use Sendmail as a friend knows Sendmail fairly well
> and I have a Sendmail b
Steven Hartland wrote:
Ok so I'm looking to replace our current windows mail
server using mdaemon with a FreeBSD solution, having
looked around there seems to be differing opinions
of which is the best option to go with between sendmail
and postfix.
...
Any advice, opinions on a full
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Moran"
I recommend squirrelmail. Unless you require some obscene feature-rich
craziness (in that case, have fun installing IMP). I've used it with
Postfix/Dovecot for a few years now with no trouble.
Why is this discussion on hack...@?
Couldn't s
Am 10.03.2010 17:47, schrieb Steven Hartland:
> Ok so I'm looking to replace our current windows mail
> server using mdaemon with a FreeBSD solution, having
> looked around there seems to be differing opinions
> of which is the best option to go with between sendmail
> an
tions of
features and options.
> 2. Is postfix that much easier?
Yes. However, the black magic in sendmail is very powerful.
> 3. What would people use for:
> 3.1. POP / IMAP support?
Separate problem. I use dovecot and I like it, but it's just a
household server.
> 3.2. We
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2010/03/10 08:47, Steven Hartland wrote:
> A few key question come to mind:-
> 1. Has sendmail's config moved away from the black art
> it once was?
No, but the m4 based configuration would make your life easier.
> 2. Is postfix that much easier?
In response to Vitaly Magerya :
>
> > 3.2. Web Mail?
>
> Don't use it, sorry.
I recommend squirrelmail. Unless you require some obscene feature-rich
craziness (in that case, have fun installing IMP). I've used it with
Postfix/Dovecot for a few years now with no trouble.
Why is this discussion
Steven Hartland wrote:
> A few key question come to mind:-
> 1. Has sendmail's config moved away from the black art
> it once was?
No.
> 2. Is postfix that much easier?
Yes.
> 3. What would people use for:
> 3.1. POP / IMAP support?
Dovecot. As a bonus, Postfix can use Dovecot's SASL for authe
> > 3.1. POP / IMAP support?
> about), Dovecot for POP3 and IMAP, and Roundcube for webmail.
My servers use:
- sendmail, I've not tried things such as qmail.
One doesnt generally have to futz much with .cf files,
(but its useful to look at & tweak the easy
Steven Hartland wrote:
Ok so I'm looking to replace our current windows mail
server using mdaemon with a FreeBSD solution, having
looked around there seems to be differing opinions
of which is the best option to go with between sendmail
and postfix.
The problem with looking for info on th
Ok so I'm looking to replace our current windows mail
server using mdaemon with a FreeBSD solution, having
looked around there seems to be differing opinions
of which is the best option to go with between sendmail
and postfix.
The problem with looking for info on this is that a
lot of the
> Now that you mention it, we are already using separate FreeBSD files in
> src/etc/sendmail/freebsd{,.submit}.mc so I can do something different
> for FreeBSD. I think we are still in code slush and not freeze for 8.0.
> I'll double check and if so, make the change tonigh
> I'll check with Claus to see if he remembers.
Claus still had the mail archive from back then. It was my scenario.
Specifically, Linux systems with certain versions of glibc would append
the domain/search in /etc/resolv.conf causing localhost lookups to
possibly return offsite systems. This wo
you mention it, we are already using separate FreeBSD files in
src/etc/sendmail/freebsd{,.submit}.mc so I can do something different
for FreeBSD. I think we are still in code slush and not freeze for 8.0.
I'll double check and if so, make the change tonight (with a note in
UPDATING). As I recal
y are clueless or lazy.
To avoid being labeled clueless or lazy, I'll offer a third option.
For sendmail I had much rather thought about option 1) and absolutely
not about option 2) as if you have ever known what S5 was and could no
longer read your $ sign and 4 on the keyb you know tha
.
To avoid being labeled clueless or lazy, I'll offer a third option.
The software authors have to support a lot of systems with broken setups
that can't actually resolve 'localhost'. We (the sendmail authors)
originally had localhost in there but we got so many complaints that
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Dirk Engling wrote:
Hi,
However, grep -R 127.0.0.1 /etc reveals, that sendmail in many places
assumes localhost to be on 127.0.0.1 instead of looking it up in
/etc/hosts or using 127.0.0.0/8 to identify a local connection.
or possibly other methods that would find even
Hi, Dirk
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Dirk Engling wrote:
> Dear fellow hackers,
>
> since jail can be bound on multiple IP addresses I tend to clone
> multiple loopback interfaces and add one loopback address to each jail
>
> cloned_interfaces="lo1 lo2 lo3"
> ifconfig_lo1_alias0="inet 127.0.
However, grep -R 127.0.0.1 /etc reveals, that sendmail in many places
assumes localhost to be on 127.0.0.1 instead of looking it up in
/etc/hosts or using 127.0.0.0/8 to identify a local connection.
calling 127.0.0.1 from jail always loops back within jail. it's all fine.
I worry that
ot;inet 127.0.0.3 netmask 0x"
ifconfig_lo3_alias0="inet 127.0.0.4 netmask 0x"
..
no this is not yet optimal, since I can not run several jails on a
single external IP anymore, but at least local daemons are not visible
to the outside world, anymore.
However, grep -R 127.0
> Maybe I misread but both of those features (I have used the second but
> not the first) seem to be all or nothing forwarders (i.e. x...@domain is
> forwarded for all xxx not just some xxx)
LUSER_RELAY is only for unknown users. If you user virtusertable,
you'll need to list out all valid us
> I have a domain that I just transfered from dreamhost and there are
> already some email accounts set up on it that are forwarded to gmail but
> there are also other accounts that are local accounts my question is
> there a easy way to say if it is not a local account forward/use as MX
Gregory Shapiro wrote:
I was aware of that but wanted a "default" alias for any addr/alias that
does not exist to send to gmail and alias(5) does not allow for wild
cards and/or defaults it seems
You can add this to your .mc file:
define(`LUSER_RELAY', `local:unknownuser')
and then al
> I was aware of that but wanted a "default" alias for any addr/alias that
> does not exist to send to gmail and alias(5) does not allow for wild
> cards and/or defaults it seems
You can add this to your .mc file:
define(`LUSER_RELAY', `local:unknownuser')
and then alias 'unknownuser' to the
Gregory Shapiro wrote:
I have a domain that I just transfered from dreamhost and there are
already some email accounts set up on it that are forwarded to gmail but
there are also other accounts that are local accounts my question is
there a easy way to say if it is not a local account fo
I have a domain that I just transfered from dreamhost and there are
already some email accounts set up on it that are forwarded to gmail but
there are also other accounts that are local accounts my question is
there a easy way to say if it is not a local account forward/use as MX
gmail?
__
omain:
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006Opening connection to MailServer
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006 Sending Mail message
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP msg sent:HELO napserver.DBTDNS
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP response220 mail.domain.com
ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.10/8.12.
17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006Opening connection to MailServer
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006 Sending Mail message
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP msg sent:HELO napserver.DBTDNS
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP response220 mail.domain.com ESMTP
Sendmail 8.12.10/8.12.10; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 1
Hope it's ok to ask a sendmail question here, I've exhausted the news
groups and web
I'm running sendmail 8.12 and it seems to have a "MAIL FROM" test in it
somewhere. Mail "FROM" is not an effective spam defense and I have it
locked down otherwise, s
01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP response220 mail.domain.com
ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.10/8.12.10; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:59:12 -0600 (MDT)
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP msg sent:MAIL FROM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP response250 mail.domain.com
Hello 123-45-67-150.wooh
I moved them to another server where "wohoo.com" isn't set up and it's
working fine. But I need to figure out why sendmail HAS to check the
local server and shut that part off. It's an "issue".
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Fri, 2006-Sep-01 15:54:54 -0600,
s
>sent. "woohoo.com" is the local domain:
>
>Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006Opening connection to MailServer
>Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006 Sending Mail message
>Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP msg sent:HELO napserver.DBTDNS
>Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00
17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006Opening connection to MailServer
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006 Sending Mail message
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP msg sent:HELO napserver.DBTDNS
Fri Sep 01 17:00:35 GMT+00:00 2006SMTP response220 mail.domain.com ESMTP
Sendmail 8.12.10/8.12.10; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:59:1
On Fri, 2006-Sep-01 15:12:24 -0600, Steve Suhre wrote:
>somewhere. Mail "FROM" is not an effective spam defense and I have it
Every little bit helps.
> so I want to shut off the "MAIL FROM" test in
>sendmail. I have a client who sends out email alerts using the serv
Hope it's ok to ask a sendmail question here, I've exhausted the news
groups and web
I'm running sendmail 8.12 and it seems to have a "MAIL FROM" test in it
somewhere. Mail "FROM" is not an effective spam defense and I have it
locked down otherwise, s
ng mail subsystem in
its default configuration. That exposes sendmail to the publicly visible
IP address. Shutting the mail sub system off causes trouble.
I hope, that describes my motivation to bring up the topic.
erdgeist
0. Is it possible to fix your MTA config to make it ``delive
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:33:18PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dirk Engling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> Why are you running cron inside the jails at all? Are you letting your
> users run it? If not, can you disable it, and instead run scripts from
> your real crontab that do
The default configuration doesn't expose sendmail to the publicly
visible IP addres. The daemon it runs only listens for
connections to
the localhost address.
Which is rewritten to the jails (externally visible) address on a
connect()
Yup. I wasn't aware of that strange behavio
Gregory Shapiro escribió:
The default configuration doesn't expose sendmail to the publicly
visible IP addres. The daemon it runs only listens for connections to
the localhost address.
Unfortunately, in jails, localhost gets remapped to the jail IP
address and therefore, he is correc
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fabian Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dirk Engling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> >
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fabian Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dirk Engling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
>
> > > > The default configuration doesn't expose sendmail
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dirk Engling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > > The default configuration doesn't expose sendmail to the publicly
> > > visible IP addres. The daemon it runs only listens for connections
On 2006.08.27 02:13:03 +0200, Dirk Engling wrote:
> I have the following problem: since I need and do not like any kind of
> smtp activity in my jails (there's no 127.0.0.1 in a jail, all services
> listen to the jails external interface), I put those lines into my
> /etc/rc.conf:
[...]
I know it
ones that scan the disk for suspicious binaries and changes -
which are duplicating the work that the same scripts running in the
native OS?
> > The default configuration doesn't expose sendmail to the publicly
> > visible IP addres. The daemon it runs only listens for connections to
>
> But it prevents a vanilla system to try to connect to localhost:25 once
> a day. Only those periodic scripts send mails per default.
If you still want mail to work, but don't want to listen on a network
port:
cd /etc/mail/
make
vi `hostname`.submit.mc
Change the 127.0.0.1 in the line "FEATU
27;m afraid, you're wrong.
> The default configuration doesn't expose sendmail to the publicly
> visible IP addres. The daemon it runs only listens for connections to
> the localhost address.
Which is rewritten to the jails (externally visible) address on a connect()
> If your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Shapiro wrote:
> Unfortunately, in jails, localhost gets remapped to the jail IP
> address and therefore, he is correct, it is accepting connections
> from the outside world. This is one thing that I would love to
> see fixed in jails.
There
>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 05:35:22 +0200 (CEST),
>>> Dirk Engling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
erdgeist> Still: FreeBSD's /etc/ assumes and provides a working mail subsystem
in
erdgeist> its default configuration. That exposes sendmail to the publicly
visible
I have the following problem: since I need and do not like any
kind of
smtp activity in my jails (there's no 127.0.0.1 in a jail, all
services
[...]
cron tries to deliver its status mails and fails.
try 'MAILTO=""' in /etc/crontab
That will work for any custom Cron just that you've set, bu
> The default configuration doesn't expose sendmail to the publicly
> visible IP addres. The daemon it runs only listens for connections to
> the localhost address.
Unfortunately, in jails, localhost gets remapped to the jail IP
address and therefore, he is correct, it is accepti
nf? That doesn't prevent cron from sending
mail; that just turns off the periodic scripts that cron launches,
some of which also send mail.
> Still: FreeBSD's /etc/ assumes and provides a working mail subsystem in
> its default configuration. That exposes sendmail to the publicly visi
stem in
its default configuration. That exposes sendmail to the publicly visible
IP address. Shutting the mail sub system off causes trouble.
I hope, that describes my motivation to bring up the topic.
erdgeist
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.o
l. sendmail_enable="NONE" is a shorthand for turning all four of
them off, though I believe it's been depreciated.
> this works fine: nothing listening on the jails interface... except that
> cron tries to deliver its status mails and fails.
>
> While failing, sendmail s
> I have the following problem: since I need and do not like any kind of
> smtp activity in my jails (there's no 127.0.0.1 in a jail, all services
[...]
> cron tries to deliver its status mails and fails.
try 'MAILTO=""' in /etc/crontab
[SorAlx] ridin' VN1500-B2
gt; listen to the jails external interface), I put those lines into my
> /etc/rc.conf:
> sendmail_enable="NO"
> sendmail_outbound_enable="NO"
> sendmail_submit_enable="NO"
> this works fine: nothing listening on the jails interface... except that
> cron
nable="NO"
sendmail_outbound_enable="NO"
sendmail_submit_enable="NO"
this works fine: nothing listening on the jails interface... except that
cron tries to deliver its status mails and fails.
While failing, sendmail seems to hog cpu and finally floods
/var/spool/cli
I'm upgrading a server and have sendmail 8.13.1 installed. I've moved
the aliases and virtusertable files over and have run makemap and
newaliases. Sendmail has been complaining that it can't find aliased
users like postmaster and www. I doublechecked the aliases file and they
On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote:
...
FEATURE(local_procmail, `/usr/bin/procmail')
MAILER(procmail)
MAILER(local)
...
You don't need MAILER(procmail) if you are using FEATURE
(local_procmail).
On the other hand, procmail as a local mailer will only read the
user's
~/
> ...
> FEATURE(local_procmail, `/usr/bin/procmail')
> MAILER(procmail)
> MAILER(local)
> ...
You don't need MAILER(procmail) if you are using FEATURE(local_procmail).
On the other hand, procmail as a local mailer will only read the user's
~/.procmailrc, *not* the system wide one. If you want to
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
