On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 09:59:17PM -0500, brian dodds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Some third-party library is calling stuff before Postfix chroots.
> >
> > Postfix does not support chroot environments that are out of sync
> > with the ho
James D. Parra wrote:
SBCGlobal does not block ingress port 25 to their mailservers.
They block egress 25 from their residential networks.
~
BDA is correct. That is what I meant.
Sorry for the confusion.
~James
Don't shoot the messenger, but 64.22.79.211 is
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some third-party library is calling stuff before Postfix chroots.
>
> Postfix does not support chroot environments that are out of sync
> with the host environment; I am not going to jump hoops to make
> that possible.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 01:45:35 AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> not sure I undertsand what you have in mind. but lessee.
... see the archives if really interested.
Now, answering to this:
> was this really long? difficult?
and to the comment along similar lines from Wietse:
> Next time, try the SEARCH
brian dodds:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> So I've done a bit of reading on postfix's internal chrooting
> capabilities and I thought it would fit exactly what I'm trying to do
> perfectly. Here is the simple desired functionality:
>
> . I want outbound email name lookups t
So I've done a bit of reading on postfix's internal chrooting
capabilities and I thought it would fit exactly what I'm trying to do
perfectly. Here is the simple desired functionality:
. I want outbound email name lookups to use a different set of name
servers than what the system normally uses
SBCGlobal does not block ingress port 25 to their mailservers.
They block egress 25 from their residential networks.
~
BDA is correct. That is what I meant.
Sorry for the confusion.
~James
M. Fioretti a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 00:02:33 AM +0100, mouss wrote:
>> Roderick A. Anderson a écrit :
>>> Magnus Bäck wrote:
[snip]
Why do you insist on testing this with telnet?...
>>> Because I can do it one step at a time and see the results that
>>> Postfix sends back. I had
M. Fioretti:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 00:02:33 AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > Roderick A. Anderson a ?crit :
> > > Magnus B?ck wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >> Why do you insist on testing this with telnet?...
> > >
> > > Because I can do it one step at a time and see the results that
> > > Postfix sends bac
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 01:19:57AM +0100, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 00:02:33 AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > Roderick A. Anderson a ?crit :
> > > Magnus B?ck wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >> Why do you insist on testing this with telnet?...
> > >
> > > Because I can do it one step at a time
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 00:02:33 AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> Roderick A. Anderson a écrit :
> > Magnus Bäck wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> Why do you insist on testing this with telnet?...
> >
> > Because I can do it one step at a time and see the results that
> > Postfix sends back. I hadn't thought of telne
Quoting David Jonas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 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
DJ Lucas a écrit :
> LuKreme wrote:
>> On 2-Dec-2008, at 20:21, DJ Lucas wrote:
>>> I can find absolutely no reason to inadvertently mislead, or worse,
>>> intentionally deceive the recipient by forging the envelope sender's
>>> address. In fact, the only reason I can see, is
>>> to intentionally
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:49:49PM -0800, David Jonas wrote:
> > If they do it correctly, perhaps you have content filters or down-stream
> > SMTP senders that are broken. What software other than Postfix do
> > the messages traverse before forwarding?
> >
> I found the culprit.
>
> To get an X-
Greg Coates a écrit :
> OK. My IP is 64.22.79.211
>
$ host 64.22.79.211
211.79.22.64.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer coatesoft.com.
$ host 64.22.79.212
212.79.22.64.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer datingfreely.com.
$ host 64.22.79.213
213.79.22.64.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer freetoswing.
Greg Coates wrote:
OK. My IP is 64.22.79.211
Greg
I see no obvious problems with your DNS. I also have no problem
connecting to sbcmx3.prodigy.net (from your logs) on port 25 from our
network. Here the host resolves to the same IP address as listed in your
logs as well. It may be time to
OK. My IP is 64.22.79.211
Greg
mouss wrote:
Greg Coates a écrit :
Of course. I can't believe I didn't think of that.
Is there any way to get postfix to _send_ using port 587 for certain
domains?
587 is for submission, not for MX. if you have an account at an ISP, you
can use 587 if the I
James D. Parra wrote (on Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 03:00:51PM -0800):
> Nov 30 05:54:28 mydomain postfix/smtp[28398]: connect to
> sbcmx5.prodigy.net[207.115.21.24]: Connection timed out (port 25)
> Nov 30 05:54:28 mydomain postfix/smtp[28398]: 3980347D80A2:
> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=none, delay
Greg Coates a écrit :
> Of course. I can't believe I didn't think of that.
>
> Is there any way to get postfix to _send_ using port 587 for certain
> domains?
>
587 is for submission, not for MX. if you have an account at an ISP, you
can use 587 if the ISP offers it. otherwise, you send to the
erstood what you were saying.
SBCGlobal does not block ingress port 25 to their mailservers.
They block egress 25 from their residential networks.
[20081203-18:12:43]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[~]$ telnet sbcmx5.prodigy.net 25
Trying 207.115.21.24...
Connected to sbcmx5.prodigy.net.
Escape character is
Of course. I can't believe I didn't think of that.
Is there any way to get postfix to _send_ using port 587 for certain
domains?
Greg
James D. Parra wrote:
Nov 30 05:54:28 mydomain postfix/smtp[28398]: connect to
sbcmx5.prodigy.net[207.115.21.24]: Connection timed out (port 25)
Nov 30 05:54
Roderick A. Anderson a écrit :
> Magnus Bäck wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Why do you insist on testing this with telnet? You will introduce
>> another possible error source (incorrect encoding of the credentials)
>> and it's a use case that you're supposedly not really interested in.
>
> Because I can do i
Nov 30 05:54:28 mydomain postfix/smtp[28398]: connect to
sbcmx5.prodigy.net[207.115.21.24]: Connection timed out (port 25)
Nov 30 05:54:28 mydomain postfix/smtp[28398]: 3980347D80A2:
to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=none, delay=283474,
delays=283324/0.04/150/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect t
I'm running a relatively new mail server. I've managed to get my server
to send to pretty much all email addresses except for one server:
sbcglobal.net. When I try to send emails to sbcglobal.net customers,
postfix's connection attempts time out. Every time. This has been
happening 100% of
LuKreme wrote:
> On 2-Dec-2008, at 20:21, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> I can find absolutely no reason to inadvertently mislead, or worse,
>> intentionally deceive the recipient by forging the envelope sender's
>> address. In fact, the only reason I can see, is
>> to intentionally deceive the recipient. Is
Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 19:52 CET,
"Roderick A. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to test my Postfix/Dovecot set up to determine why (what
I'm doing wrong) a Perl script using Mail::Sender is failing. Errors
say connection failed -- rather ambig
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:02:37AM -0800, David Jonas wrote:
>
>
>>> What version of Postfix are you using?
>>>
>> 2.3.8 and 2.4.6-- yea, we're a little behind. Perhaps I'll bring us up
>> to 2.5 today.
>>
>
> I am not aware of any "transparency" issues in ei
On Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 19:52 CET,
"Roderick A. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to test my Postfix/Dovecot set up to determine why (what
> I'm doing wrong) a Perl script using Mail::Sender is failing. Errors
> say connection failed -- rather ambiguous I'd say! :
I'm trying to test my Postfix/Dovecot set up to determine why (what I'm
doing wrong) a Perl script using Mail::Sender is failing. Errors say
connection failed -- rather ambiguous I'd say! :-)
This is for a system with multiple (virtual?) domains.
I'm using telnet to test but am having a prob
Nice one, you actually have it spot on :-)
Thanks a lot, I guess I wasn't looking where I should have been...
Regards,
Sebastien Marion
On 3 Dec 2008, at 18:21, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:06:18PM +, Sebastien Marion wrote:
Thank you Wietse.
Sorry, I meant Mail
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:06:18PM +, Sebastien Marion wrote:
> Thank you Wietse.
>
> Sorry, I meant Maildir of course.
> I'm looking into ~/Maildir/cur/ and nothing new pops in.
>
Look in ~/Maildir/new, mail is moved to "cur" by MUAs, MTAs deliver
to "new". This assumes that you are in fac
Thank you Wietse.
Sorry, I meant Maildir of course.
I'm looking into ~/Maildir/cur/ and nothing new pops in.
Regards,
Sebastien Marion
On 3 Dec 2008, at 17:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
Sebastien Marion:
Thank you Terry,
Logs say:
Dec 3 17:06:09 stock postfix/local[9123]: 1B5CA10369:
to=<[
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> polloxx escreveu:
>>
>> Dear group,
>>
>> We want to limit the number of mails a given IP address can send per
>> time unit (outbound).
>> What do you use to resolve this with a postfix server?
>> We want
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 09:25:04AM -0600, Cengiz Vural wrote:
> > smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> > check_sender_access regexp:/etc/postfix/tables/access
> >
> > and
> >
> > created /etc/postfix/tables/access
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]REDIRECT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Ran postmap /etc/postfi
Sebastien Marion:
> Thank you Terry,
>
> Logs say:
>
> Dec 3 17:06:09 stock postfix/local[9123]: 1B5CA10369:
> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=local, delay=0.04, delays=0.02/0.02/0/0,
> dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to maildir)
>
> But nothing actually appeared in that very Mailbox...
Th
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:46:09PM +, Sebastien Marion wrote:
> Thank you Terry,
>
> Logs say:
>
> Dec 3 17:06:09 stock postfix/local[9123]: 1B5CA10369:
> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=local, delay=0.04, delays=0.02/0.02/0/0,
> dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to maildir)
>
> But noth
Thank you Terry,
Logs say:
Dec 3 17:06:09 stock postfix/local[9123]: 1B5CA10369:
to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=local, delay=0.04, delays=0.02/0.02/0/0,
dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to maildir)
But nothing actually appeared in that very Mailbox...
I've looked at the chmod, but it see
Sebastien Marion wrote:
Hi again,
I've gone forward, there was apparently some old exim4 .forward files
hanging about... as somebody else found out.
So I've removed them, and emails do not bounce anymore.
What happens now is that postfix is all happy but the emails do not
seem to arrive in t
Hi again,
I've gone forward, there was apparently some old exim4 .forward files
hanging about... as somebody else found out.
So I've removed them, and emails do not bounce anymore.
What happens now is that postfix is all happy but the emails do not
seem to arrive in the relevant Maildir.
Sebastien Marion:
> >> I've been bashing my head at this for 2 days now.
> >>
> >> I can send and receive emails nicely from my address.
> >> My colleagues however cannot receive emails as postfix bounces them
> >> back. They are part of the system (debian users).
> >
> >> mydestination = whizlogic
On 3 Dec 2008, at 16:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
Sebastien Marion:
Hi all,
I've been bashing my head at this for 2 days now.
I can send and receive emails nicely from my address.
My colleagues however cannot receive emails as postfix bounces them
back. They are part of the system (debian users)
Sebastien Marion:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been bashing my head at this for 2 days now.
>
> I can send and receive emails nicely from my address.
> My colleagues however cannot receive emails as postfix bounces them
> back. They are part of the system (debian users).
> mydestination = whizlogic.co.u
LuKreme wrote:
On 2-Dec-2008, at 20:21, DJ Lucas wrote:
I can find absolutely no reason to inadvertently mislead, or worse,
intentionally deceive the recipient by forging the envelope sender's
address. In fact, the only reason I can see, is to intentionally
deceive the recipient. Is there
Hi all,
I've been bashing my head at this for 2 days now.
I can send and receive emails nicely from my address.
My colleagues however cannot receive emails as postfix bounces them
back. They are part of the system (debian users).
It's a though /etc/passwd wasn't read by postfix.
Logs tell m
On 2-Dec-2008, at 20:21, DJ Lucas wrote:
I can find absolutely no reason to inadvertently mislead, or worse,
intentionally deceive the recipient by forging the envelope sender's
address. In fact, the only reason I can see, is to intentionally
deceive the recipient. Is there any other reaso
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Cengiz Vural <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Victor Duchovni <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 02:05:20PM -0600, Cengiz Vural wrote:
>>
>> > hello all,
>> >
>> > I am trying to place some restrictions on a lo
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Victor Duchovni <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 02:05:20PM -0600, Cengiz Vural wrote:
>
> > hello all,
> >
> > I am trying to place some restrictions on a local user account. I would
> like
> > to redirect any emails sent from a specific user t
Spahn, Daniel:
Spahn, Daniel wrote:
> I am running A recent build of Postfix on a Gentoo server- I am pretty
> sure it is about 3-4 months old. The problem I have is that the line the
> mail is sent out on is buggy- I get lots of packet sequence errors, slow
> speeds, etc. I need any advice I ca
DJ Lucas wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Very likely there are other, better ways to combat this spam. Look
for other traits you can use to reject it.
I am, by no means, anything even close to expert WRT the whole SMTP
process, but, I do think that I can provide (or at least what I believe
to be
Spahn, Daniel wrote:
My setup is using the defaults, but the connection is so flaky that even pings
don't return consistently. My current setup no longer delivers mail, but I get
lots of timeout errors, and it looks like most messages end up in the defer
queue. Any ideas? This is a highly poli
DJ Lucas a écrit :
> Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>> Very likely there are other, better ways to combat this spam. Look
>> for other traits you can use to reject it.
>>
> I am, by no means, anything even close to expert WRT the whole SMTP
> process, but, I do think that I can provide (or at least what I b
polloxx escreveu:
Dear group,
We want to limit the number of mails a given IP address can send per
time unit (outbound).
What do you use to resolve this with a postfix server?
We want a flexible method were we can set the number of allowed mails
per time unit per IP address (in a SQL datbase).
Ok then, yep I had it configured that way in my mail systems... then the
result that having less or more process_limit set in master.cf for the smtp
or amavis daemon just could affect to the fact that the active queue can
become full (and mails automatically to go from incoming to deferred).. so
no
My setup is using the defaults, but the connection is so flaky that even pings
don't return consistently. My current setup no longer delivers mail, but I get
lots of timeout errors, and it looks like most messages end up in the defer
queue. Any ideas? This is a highly political situation and the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>> --
>>
>> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:50:21 +0100
>> From: mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Problems with backscaters and require authentication
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i have some problems with spammers and
> --
>
> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:50:21 +0100
> From: mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Problems with backscaters and require authentication
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > i have some problems with spammers and i would like to ask how to set
>
Dear group,
We want to limit the number of mails a given IP address can send per
time unit (outbound).
What do you use to resolve this with a postfix server?
We want a flexible method were we can set the number of allowed mails
per time unit per IP address (in a SQL datbase).
Thx
P.
57 matches
Mail list logo
