I was looking at the default levels for anvil and unless I am
misunderstanding (likely) they seem really high.
smtpd_client_connection_count_limit (default: 50)
The maximum number of connections that an SMTP client
may make simultaneously.
So, a single client can open up *50* simultan
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM, mouss wrote:
> Simon a écrit :
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Simon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Wietse Venema
>>> wrote:
You are expanding the virtual aliase BEFORE the Amavis filter,
and another time after mail is filtered.
K bharathan wrote:
my relay server has got multiple relay domains and i want only exempt
mails to one particular domain from checking spamhaus; given below
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain
Alberto Lepe a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> I understand now about top-posting... Sorry for that.
>
the other nice things that we like is trimming: remove things that are
not essential. see the "[snip]" above.
> Thank you Sahil, I just got it with your explanation about
> "smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender"
Simon a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Simon wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> You are expanding the virtual aliase BEFORE the Amavis filter,
>>> and another time after mail is filtered.
>>>
>>> See http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README, and look for
my relay server has got multiple relay domains and i want only exempt mails
to one particular domain from checking spamhaus; given below
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_recipient
reject_non_fqdn_sender
reject_unknown_sender_domain
reject_unknown_recipi
> I don't see a forward action in header_checks. Maybe you intend to use
> REDIRECT? Postfix access tables allow more than accept/reject,
> including REDIRECT.
> http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
>
> But my point is that header_checks are the wrong tool for the job.
> There is no guarantee t
Chris Dos wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
It looks like I want to check for RCPT TO:
So I ran this check against the regexp table using postmap:
postmap -q "RCPT TO:"
regexp:header_checks.regexp
and it came back with a result of DISCARD.
So I guess I don't understand how you said it will never match a
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:06:57PM -, Paul Hutchings wrote:
> I believe there are some issues that can be specific to wildcard certs
> (Server Alternate Names has cropped up) that can mitigate this, but in
> short, is it a good idea or a terrible idea?
For MX hosts, self-signed certs are the
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Simon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> You are expanding the virtual aliase BEFORE the Amavis filter,
>> and another time after mail is filtered.
>>
>> See http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README, and look for examples
>> with receiv
Paul Hutchings wrote, at 03/18/2009 02:06 PM:
> We may be getting a wildcard SSL cert shortly, which would allow us
> under the licensing terms to use it on as many servers as we wanted.
>
> I currently have Postfix setup to support SSL/TLS using a self-signed
> cert.
>
> As mail servers obviousl
Noel Jones wrote:
>> It looks like I want to check for RCPT TO:
>> So I ran this check against the regexp table using postmap:
>> postmap -q "RCPT TO:"
>> regexp:header_checks.regexp
>> and it came back with a result of DISCARD.
>>
>> So I guess I don't understand how you said it will never match a
We may be getting a wildcard SSL cert shortly, which would allow us
under the licensing terms to use it on as many servers as we wanted.
I currently have Postfix setup to support SSL/TLS using a self-signed
cert.
As mail servers obviously work "hands off" and you don't have human eyes
to notice t
Victor Duchovni:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:56:48PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > /dev/rob0:
> > > Some comments I would add:
> > >
> > > 1. I consider it best practice to use "permit_auth_destination" rather
> > >than "OK" for whitelisting. That's an extra safety check in case you
> > >
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:56:48PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> /dev/rob0:
> > On Wed March 18 2009 03:06:40 Pascal Volk wrote:
> > > > can i whitelist one domain from checking spamhaus ?
> > > > thanks
> > >
> > > smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > > ...
> > > reject_unauth_destination
> > >
/dev/rob0:
> On Wed March 18 2009 03:06:40 Pascal Volk wrote:
> > > can i whitelist one domain from checking spamhaus ?
> > > thanks
> >
> > smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > ...
> > reject_unauth_destination
> > ...
> > check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/whitelist_clients
> > check_s
On Wed March 18 2009 03:06:40 Pascal Volk wrote:
> > can i whitelist one domain from checking spamhaus ?
> > thanks
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> ...
> reject_unauth_destination
> ...
> check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/whitelist_clients
> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/
devel anaconda:
>
>
> 18.03.09, 18:27, "Wietse Venema" :
>
> > devel anaconda:
> > > Hello everybody!
> > >
> > > I have a little problem with local delivery performance. Due to
> > > specific mail routes (it's complicated), on a couples of my SMTP
> > > gateways, I have to deliver all local ma
devel anaconda wrote:
18.03.09, 18:27, "Wietse Venema" :
devel anaconda:
Hello everybody!
I have a little problem with local delivery performance. Due to
specific mail routes (it's complicated), on a couples of my SMTP
gateways, I have to deliver all local mail to another smtp:host:25.
I do
K bharathan:
> Mar 18 17:25:19 relay2 postfix/smtp[21383]: 5470B21265:
> to=<41b.4.74998426-6452...@whereverstormy.com>, relay=
> mail.WhereverStormy.com[173.46.193.75]:25, delay=418568,
> delays=418439/0.46/4.7/123, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (lost connection with
> mail.WhereverStormy.com[173.46.
18.03.09, 18:27, "Wietse Venema" :
> devel anaconda:
> > Hello everybody!
> >
> > I have a little problem with local delivery performance. Due to
> > specific mail routes (it's complicated), on a couples of my SMTP
> > gateways, I have to deliver all local mail to another smtp:host:25.
> > I do
Chris Dos wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
That is what YOU believe. You probably made a typo somewhere. This
is why you should post "postconf -n" command output, as requested
in the mailing list welcome message which you decided to ignore.
I don't believe that header addresses contain ONLY an e-ma
Wietse Venema wrote:
> That is what YOU believe. You probably made a typo somewhere. This
> is why you should post "postconf -n" command output, as requested
> in the mailing list welcome message which you decided to ignore.
>
>> I don't believe that header addresses contain ONLY an e-mail
>> addr
* K bharathan :
> Mar 18 17:25:19 relay2 postfix/smtp[21383]: 5470B21265:
> to=<41b.4.74998426-6452...@whereverstormy.com>, relay=
> mail.WhereverStormy.com[173.46.193.75]:25, delay=418568,
> delays=418439/0.46/4.7/123, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (lost connection with
> mail.WhereverStormy.com[173.
Mar 18 17:25:19 relay2 postfix/smtp[21383]: 5470B21265:
to=<41b.4.74998426-6452...@whereverstormy.com>, relay=
mail.WhereverStormy.com[173.46.193.75]:25, delay=418568,
delays=418439/0.46/4.7/123, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (lost connection with
mail.WhereverStormy.com[173.46.193.75] while sending e
devel anaconda:
> Hello everybody!
>
> I have a little problem with local delivery performance. Due to
> specific mail routes (it's complicated), on a couples of my SMTP
> gateways, I have to deliver all local mail to another smtp:host:25.
> I do the following:
>
> myhostname = external.mydomain.
On 18-Mar-2009, at 09:07, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
testsaslauthd
$ testsaslauthd -u u...@mysqlhosted.tld -p password
0: NO "authentication failed"
$ testsaslauthd -u user -p password
0: OK "Success."
So I can authenticate against the local users with testsaslauth, but I
cannot over smtp
* LuKreme :
> On 18-Mar-2009, at 02:38, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>> * LuKreme :
>>> path to which socket there?
>>>
>>> $ ls -ls /var/run/saslauthd/
>>> total 2
>>> 0 srwxrwxrwx 1 root postfix 0 Mar 17 03:52 mux
>>
>> mux it is.
>
> Starting saslauthd.
> saslauthd[91067] :main: cou
Hello everybody!
I have a little problem with local delivery performance. Due to specific mail
routes (it's complicated), on a couples of my SMTP gateways, I have to deliver
all local mail to another smtp:host:25. I do the following:
myhostname = external.mydomain.com
mydomain = mydomain.com
ma
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 3/17/2009, Chris Dos (ch...@chrisdos.com) wrote:
>> Sorry, I did have:
>> recipient_delimiter = +
>> in another part of my main.cf file.
>
> One reason why the DEBUG_README asks (among other things) that you
> provide output of postconf -n instead of snips from main.cf.
>
On 18-Mar-2009, at 02:38, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* LuKreme :
path to which socket there?
$ ls -ls /var/run/saslauthd/
total 2
0 srwxrwxrwx 1 root postfix 0 Mar 17 03:52 mux
mux it is.
Starting saslauthd.
saslauthd[91067] :main: could not chdir to: /var/run/
saslauthd/mux
(didn't mean to take so long to respond,
was too tired);
As for using telnet(thanks for the info
I'll have to compile that into the system
and see what it produces.
In regards to the -t option,
are there modules that need to be put into
/etc/postfix/main.cf
to help with this purpose?
As for:
To:,
c...@digital-journal.com wrote:
W dniu 2009-03-18 14:23, Costin Guşă pisze:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
I've been reading today about;
reject_unknown_sender_domain
and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under
'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
whereas I've had it under 'smtpd_recipi
Pawe?? Le??niak:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> W dniu 2009-03-18 14:23, Costin Gu?? pisze:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
> >
> >> I've been reading today about;
> >>
> >> reject_unknown_sender_domain
> >>
> >> and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under 'smtpd_
Paweł Leśniak wrote:
W dniu 2009-03-18 14:23, Costin Guşă pisze:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
I've been reading today about;
reject_unknown_sender_domain
and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under 'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
whereas I've had it under 'smtpd_recipient_restri
> W dniu 2009-03-18 14:23, Costin GuÅÄ pisze:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> I've been reading today about;
>>>
>>> reject_unknown_sender_domain
>>>
>>> and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under
>>> 'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
>>> whereas I've had it under 'smtpd_recipient
W dniu 2009-03-18 14:23, Costin Guşă pisze:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
I've been reading today about;
reject_unknown_sender_domain
and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under 'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
whereas I've had it under 'smtpd_recipient_restrictions'. Is this corre
Bill Cole wrote:
Noel Jones wrote, On 3/15/09 4:26 PM:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
Sahil Tandon:
OpenDNS will not blindly redirect DNS queries that look like DNSBL
requests. Notice the difference:
% dig @resolver1.opendns.com www.abcdefghijklmnop1234
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
> I've been reading today about;
>
> reject_unknown_sender_domain
>
> and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under 'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
> whereas I've had it under 'smtpd_recipient_restrictions'. Is this correct?
>
> thanks,
> Chas.
>
all smtpd_rec
I've been reading today about;
reject_unknown_sender_domain
and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under 'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
whereas I've had it under 'smtpd_recipient_restrictions'. Is this correct?
thanks,
Chas.
Chris Dos:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Chris Dos:
> >> relay=mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73]:25, delay=0.19,
> >> delays=0.02/0/0.11/0.05, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (host
> >> mail.chrisdos.com[71.33.251.73] said: 550 5.1.1
> >> : Recipient
> >> address rejected: User unknown in local recipient ta
On 3/17/2009, Chris Dos (ch...@chrisdos.com) wrote:
> Sorry, I did have:
> recipient_delimiter = +
> in another part of my main.cf file.
One reason why the DEBUG_README asks (among other things) that you
provide output of postconf -n instead of snips from main.cf.
--
Best regards,
Charles
Justin Mattock:
> Mar 17 15:16:34 name postfix/pickup[1795]: 61712AE1C4: uid=1000 from=
> Mar 17 15:16:34 name postfix/cleanup[2113]: 61712AE1C4:
> message-id=<1237328194.190...@unix>
> Mar 17 15:16:34 name postfix/cleanup[2113]: 61712AE1C4: to=,
> relay=none, delay=0.13, delays=0.13/0/0/0, dsn=5.1
On Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 07:20 CET,
Justin Mattock wrote:
> hello;(after spending 6days of starring at the same
> message);
> I can't figure this out for the life of me.
>
> I've compiled balsa from source using this
> tutorial:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/b
* LuKreme :
> On 17-Mar-2009, at 13:45, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>> smtpd_sasl_security_options = noplaintext, noanonymous
>> smtpd_sasl_tls_security_options = noanonymous
>>
>> As for the PAM part in the sasl authentication, start saslauthd like
>> this:
>>
>> saslauthd -a pam -m /path/to/the/
2009/3/18 Justin Mattock :
> hello;(after spending 6days of starring at the same
> message);
> I can't figure this out for the life of me.
>
> I've compiled balsa from source using this
> tutorial:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/balsa.html
> when building I've decided to use
On 18.03.2009 08:55 K bharathan wrote:
> Hi
> can i whitelist one domain from checking spamhaus ?
> thanks
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
...
reject_unauth_destination
...
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/whitelist_clients
check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/whitelist_senders
re
Hi
can i whitelist one domain from checking spamhaus ?
thanks
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Chris Dos wrote:
> I'm at a loss why this is not working. I'm sending a VERP SMTP e-mail using
> the following script:
>
> (
> echo "EHLO $(uname -n)"
> echo "MAIL FROM: XVERP"
> echo "RCPT TO:"
> echo "DATA"
> echo "From: "
>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Chris Cameron wrote:
> I have a Postfix server that sits in front of Exchange. Exchange has
> anti-spam software running that will reject what it deems as spam.
> This is creating a problem for Postfix, which accepts a message, and
> tries to send it to Exchange, w
50 matches
Mail list logo
