Ronald MacDonald wrote:
Nov 30 10:51:07 de003221 amavis[28871]: (28871-10) wbl: whitelisted
sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nov 30 10:51:07 de003221 amavis[28871]: (28871-10) Passed CLEAN,
[83.7.120.131] [83.7.120.131] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ->
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hit
DJ Lucas wrote:
ehlo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Coincidently, I just corrected a mis-configuration in my server as a
result of that example. Commented out helo restrictions a really long
time ago...they must not have been doing too much. :-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses
Roman Medina-Heigl Hernandez wrote:
Yes, you're right (I trust you! :-)). I did a quick search in my inbox and
found an example: notices from Ubuntu bug tracking system ("Launchpad" at
canonical.com) use that (poor) technique. But I'm wondering:
1) How often could you find this "nasty errors" (ye
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:35:18PM -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
> >Did you see header_checks documented as a supported parameter in
> >http://www.postfix.org/smtpd.8.html (rhetorical question, the answer
> >is no). A closer look at the documentation shows this ia feature of
> >the cleanup service:
>
David Jonas:
> We provide forwarding to external accounts (e.g. gmail.com) and it
> appears that in some cases postfix is invalidating the DKIM signatures.
> The most prominent and obvious case is eBay and PayPal where gmail is
> now bouncing/dropping messages where the signature doesn't match.
>
--- mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Liu a écrit :
> > Hi folks,
> >
> >
> > I have a /etc/postfix/mysql_*.cf file with following content;
> > user=mail
> > password=mypasswd
> > dbname=maildb
> > table='t'
> > select_field=domains
> > where_field=domains
> > hosts=127.0.0.1
> > addit
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 05:55:28PM -0800, David Jonas wrote:
> We provide forwarding to external accounts (e.g. gmail.com) and it
> appears that in some cases postfix is invalidating the DKIM signatures.
> The most prominent and obvious case is eBay and PayPal where gmail is
> now bouncing/droppin
On Dec 1, 2008, at 12:17 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 06:40:18PM -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
I tried it like this:
10.0.0.1:smtps inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
-o
smtpd_recipient_restrictions
=permit_sasl_authenticated
Stephen Liu a écrit :
> Hi folks,
>
>
> I have a /etc/postfix/mysql_*.cf file with following content;
> user=mail
> password=mypasswd
> dbname=maildb
> table='t'
> select_field=domains
> where_field=domains
> hosts=127.0.0.1
> additional_conditions = and enabled = 1
>
>
> Please help me to unde
We provide forwarding to external accounts (e.g. gmail.com) and it
appears that in some cases postfix is invalidating the DKIM signatures.
The most prominent and obvious case is eBay and PayPal where gmail is
now bouncing/dropping messages where the signature doesn't match.
I caused ebay to send a
Hi folks,
I have a /etc/postfix/mysql_*.cf file with following content;
user=mail
password=mypasswd
dbname=maildb
table='t'
select_field=domains
where_field=domains
hosts=127.0.0.1
additional_conditions = and enabled = 1
Please help me to understand table='t'. What is 't'?
TIA
B.R.
Stephen
On 01/12/2008, Ronald MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/12/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ronald MacDonald wrote:
> ...
>
> > > However, in one of those "crap, what do I do now" moments, I'm
> > > confuzzled as to how to get Postfix to realise that the mail *sh
On 01/12/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ronald MacDonald wrote:
...
> > However, in one of those "crap, what do I do now" moments, I'm
> > confuzzled as to how to get Postfix to realise that the mail *should*
> > be checked, since it's coming in from outside the network.
> >
>
Ronald MacDonald wrote:
It's been a hectic couple of weeks, and I'm getting complaints from
users after having upgraded to a new system that mails are coming in
which have been spoofed. I see exactly what's going on - a rogue
system opens up port 25 on my system, tells it the mail's from one of
t
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:25:00PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > /*
> > * Don't bother checking the syntax.
> > */
> > smtpd_chat_reply(state, "221 2.0.0 Bye");
> >
> > /*
> > * When the "." and quit replies are pipelined, make sure they are
> > * flushed now, to
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:58:42AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> > On 12/1/2008 11:54 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > > There is nothing wrong with lost connections after QUIT. Newer versions
> > > of Postfix only log "lost connection" in the SMTP server during data
> > > tran
Dear list,
It's been a hectic couple of weeks, and I'm getting complaints from
users after having upgraded to a new system that mails are coming in
which have been spoofed. I see exactly what's going on - a rogue
system opens up port 25 on my system, tells it the mail's from one of
the users on th
Roman Medina-Heigl Hernandez wrote:
Noel Jones escribió:
You are (again) right, perhaps spamassasin is better for performing this
kind of check... with the added bonus that filtered mail is not dropped,
but quarantined (so you could always rescue a false negative). Do you know
"how well" does
Noel Jones escribió:
> If you have a large number of domains, keep a separate list of the domains
> and let the computer build the different tables for you. Use a Makefile to
> make it easy.
Or I could use two different mysql queries, over the same table containing
the vdomains...
> Some web
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:58:42AM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 12/1/2008 11:54 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with lost connections after QUIT. Newer versions
> > of Postfix only log "lost connection" in the SMTP server during data
> > transfer or when sending the "."
Noel Jones ha scritto:
mouss wrote:
Mouss,
this could be a solution... but haven't find any example or documation
to try it.
Could you pount me at any example?
make sure to read:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_address_maps
smtpd_discard_ehlo_keyword_
On 12/1/2008 11:54 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with lost connections after QUIT. Newer versions
> of Postfix only log "lost connection" in the SMTP server during data
> transfer or when sending the "." response. The client is free to
> disconnect without "QUIT" at all other
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:05:44AM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Quick question--
>
> Nov 30 17:39:03 p34 postfix/smtpd[15257]: 6B3A310676:
> client=localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1]
> Nov 30 17:39:03 p34 postfix/cleanup[15260]: 6B3A310676:
> message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nov 30 17:39:03 p34
Roman Medina-Heigl Hernandez wrote:
Noel Jones escribió:
Roman Medina-Heigl Hernandez wrote:
Hello,
Spammers often send (forged) mail where "mail from" address is the
same as
"rcpt to" address. An extension of that could be using a "mail from"
address where src domain is one of our valid virtu
Noel Jones escribió:
> Roman Medina-Heigl Hernandez wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Spammers often send (forged) mail where "mail from" address is the
>> same as
>> "rcpt to" address. An extension of that could be using a "mail from"
>> address where src domain is one of our valid virtual domains. I can onl
J.P. Trosclair wrote:
For the past couple of weeks we've been getting a lot of spam from valid
mail accounts on our domain. The spam gets automatically white listed
since it's from our domain. Short of removing our own domain from our
white lists, I'm looking for a way to put an end to this. Ou
Noel Jones a écrit :
> mouss wrote:
>> Simone Felici a écrit :
>>> mouss ha scritto:
Simone Felici a écrit :
> Why? Uhm, dunno...
> It seems certain mailclients has Autenticated smtp enabled as default
> and if the client found the smtp server support it, then it try to
> send
Quick question--
Nov 30 17:39:03 p34 postfix/smtpd[15257]: 6B3A310676:
client=localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1]
Nov 30 17:39:03 p34 postfix/cleanup[15260]: 6B3A310676: message-id=<[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Nov 30 17:39:03 p34 postfix/qmgr[18872]: 6B3A310676: from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
size=430, nrcpt=1
Roman Medina-Heigl Hernandez wrote:
Hello,
Spammers often send (forged) mail where "mail from" address is the same as
"rcpt to" address. An extension of that could be using a "mail from"
address where src domain is one of our valid virtual domains. I can only
think of 3 cases:
1) Src IP is 127.0
mouss wrote:
Simone Felici a écrit :
mouss ha scritto:
Simone Felici a écrit :
Why? Uhm, dunno...
It seems certain mailclients has Autenticated smtp enabled as default
and if the client found the smtp server support it, then it try to send
in auth. This return an error, due inappropriate setti
Hello,
Spammers often send (forged) mail where "mail from" address is the same as
"rcpt to" address. An extension of that could be using a "mail from"
address where src domain is one of our valid virtual domains. I can only
think of 3 cases:
1) Src IP is 127.0.0.1 -> Mail should pass (eg: sent by
Simone Felici a écrit :
> mouss ha scritto:
>> Simone Felici a écrit :
>>> Why? Uhm, dunno...
>>> It seems certain mailclients has Autenticated smtp enabled as default
>>> and if the client found the smtp server support it, then it try to send
>>> in auth. This return an error, due inappropriate se
For the past couple of weeks we've been getting a lot of spam from valid
mail accounts on our domain. The spam gets automatically white listed
since it's from our domain. Short of removing our own domain from our
white lists, I'm looking for a way to put an end to this. Our server
already requi
Hi to all,
i want to set a dimension limit in relation to recipients number and
attachment's size; that is if number_recipients * attachment's size
exceed 100MB than i want to discard these email, otherwise i can permit
them.
Can i do it?
How?
Thanks in advance
mouss ha scritto:
Simone Felici a écrit :
Why? Uhm, dunno...
It seems certain mailclients has Autenticated smtp enabled as default
and if the client found the smtp server support it, then it try to send
in auth. This return an error, due inappropriate settings of the client.
if you know their
Sriram Nyshadham wrote:
[please don't top-post]
No Sahil,
Qstat is also used for Postfix.
What is Qstat and where did it come from? All the references
I find on google indicate it's part of qmail. It's certainly
not part of postfix. I would always trust an official postfix
utility bef
No Sahil,
Qstat is also used for Postfix. I just found that postqueue also displays the
repeated attempts to connect to any mail server(s) which are not accepting
mails. That's why the count becomes bigger. I believe qstat gives the right
value.
Thanks,
Sriram Nyshadham.
-Original Messa
Adrian Overbury:
> Is it possible, if I specify a mailbox_command in my main.cf, to pipe
> any output that produces on stdout to somewhere else? Like, say, to
$ man logger
$ man postlog
Wietse
Daryl:
> Greetings,
> For the second time in a month I have a postfix/sendmail: fatal:
> chdir
> /var/spool/postfix Permission denied error.
> There are no possible solutions in my logs, and googling, has found nothing.
> My permissions
> for postfix are correct;
>
> #ls -ld /var/
Sriram Nyshadham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am new to postfix and am wondering what is the difference between qstat and
> postqueue contents. When I check my qstat
> I get only 4000 mails in the queue. Whereas when I try postqueue, I See
> around 18000. Please help me.
Stick to postqueue.
Hi All,
I am new to postfix and am wondering what is the difference between qstat and
postqueue contents. When I check my qstat
I get only 4000 mails in the queue. Whereas when I try postqueue, I See around
18000. Please help me.
out04# postqueue -p |wc -l
17852
out04# qstat
41 matches
Mail list logo
