On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Lars Hansson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:48:12 -0500
Justin Krejci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anyone has any know how on tweaking Cisco's smtp fixup protocol, that would
be great.
I don't know of *anyone* with an even remotely serious mail system that has
been able t
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:48:12 -0500
Justin Krejci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If anyone has any know how on tweaking Cisco's smtp fixup protocol, that
> would
> be great.
I don't know of *anyone* with an even remotely serious mail system that has
been able to use Cisco's "fixup" features for any
On Sep 11, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Justin Krejci wrote:
The SMTP Fixup "feature" also includes several other "features"
such as
limiting concurrent connections from each external host. This
"feature"
causes so many problems for anyone with a lot of
On Sunday 11 September 2005 10:48 am, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:26 AM, jared r r spiegel wrote:
> > i don't recall having seen a PIX do a 220 banner with
> > _only_ asterisks. i think they've always had 2s and 0s mixed
> > in there in an f'd up fashion
> >
> > but my knee
On Sep 11, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Justin Krejci wrote:
The SMTP Fixup "feature" also includes several other "features"
such as
limiting concurrent connections from each external host. This
"feature"
causes so many problems for anyone with a lot of mail and are also
using an
external mail spam/vi
On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:26 AM, jared r r spiegel wrote:
i don't recall having seen a PIX do a 220 banner with
_only_ asterisks. i think they've always had 2s and 0s mixed
in there in an f'd up fashion
but my knee-jerk is still to think of a PIX and getting it to
shut the hell up.
w
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Jason Dixon wrote:
> Yes, there is a PIX (eventually to be replaced with OpenBSD/PF), but
> I don't understand how that could interfere. If I remove the
> external system from , I get redirected to spamd as
> expected:
pix interferes in every possible way, but your curre
> I guess it's possible that PIX software might be munging the 220
> (unlikely), but I still see the connections in my maillog, so it's
> not intercepting the SMTP session.
I think it's entirely likely that the PIX is munging things - this
is the smtp-fixup "feature" of the PIX units.
You might t
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:12:07AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Steve Williams wrote:
>
> >Jason Dixon wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# telnet mail.domain.com 25
> >>Trying x.x.x.x...
> >>Connected to mail.domain.com (x.x.x.x).
> >>Escape character is '^]'.
> >>220
On Sep 11, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Steve Williams wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
I'm using spamd with greylisting on a new Postfix mail proxy, but
it's behaving strangely for accepted connections. If I make a
connection to the server from my whitelisted ()
external test server, I see the follow
Jason Dixon wrote:
I'm using spamd with greylisting on a new Postfix mail proxy, but
it's behaving strangely for accepted connections. If I make a
connection to the server from my whitelisted () external
test server, I see the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# telnet mail.domain.com 25
I'm using spamd with greylisting on a new Postfix mail proxy, but
it's behaving strangely for accepted connections. If I make a
connection to the server from my whitelisted () external
test server, I see the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# telnet mail.domain.com 25
Trying x.x.x.x...
Co
12 matches
Mail list logo
