On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, Srdan Dukic wrote:
> The test didn't work. I tried sending a message using the sendmail
> command, going to my hotmail address, and the logs show that it did in
> fact deliver the message to the server:
Submitting via sendmail bypasses smtpd_foo_restrictions, so this is not a
Hi,
I realised that testing with sendmail wasn't the best idea. After
trying it out with an smtp client (thunderbird) I found that the
server returned the following error:
Jul 4 18:18:57 mailtest postfix/smtpd[9623]: warning: specify one of
(check_client_access, check_helo_access, check_sender_a
2009/7/4 Wilson A. Galafassi Jr. :
> I use Linux. How i can configure dns for this setup? In the Servers i have
> to configure the same hostname? And the reverse dns same too in all the
> machines i want to user as load balancing?
Please don't top-post, put your responses in-line with the parts
yo
The test didn't work. I tried sending a message using the sendmail
command, going to my hotmail address, and the logs show that it did in
fact deliver the message to the server:
Jul 4 17:38:24 mailtest postfix/pickup[9254]: 363ABF6913: uid=1000 from=
Jul 4 17:38:24 mailtest postfix/cleanup[9258]
i've been running this relay gateway for 2 yrs now; i'd no problems of
backscatters; have got a relay_recipient table and it take care of this;
also kept a check on multiple bounces from an empty envelope sender;
this particular scatter was for a customer domain and haven't kept
recipient table f
"fake...@fakessh.eu" writes:
> I have two domain names sign with dkimproxy
> fakessh.eu and renelacroute.fr
> this is not a problem of software
[...]
You are signing [fakessh.eu]'s signature with
[renelacroute.fr]'s private key, i guess.
That's why verifier.port25.com's reflector is
always c
Srdan Dukic wrote:
Hi,
For one of my projects I'm setting up a server to test the total
number of SMTP connections that our postfix server can handle. I am
trying to isolate the first part of the smtp server transaction up to
the recipient server receiving the message i.e. the end of the smtp
tr
Chris Babcock wrote:
Don't feed the troll
The person who posted the incomprehensible remark about
postscatter is no longer on the list. Other than expressing
his dissatisfaction in an inappropriate way, I have no idea
what he was talking about.
Further speculation as to what he actually r
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:35:11 -0400
Andrew Thompson wrote:
> Other than hanging around and possibly multiplying in mail queues,
> what is the hate for backscatter founded in? Isn't this one of those
> things you're going to have to deal with if you run a mail server?
More to the point, is there *
Hi,
For one of my projects I'm setting up a server to test the total
number of SMTP connections that our postfix server can handle. I am
trying to isolate the first part of the smtp server transaction up to
the recipient server receiving the message i.e. the end of the smtp
transaction. Afterwards
R Johnson wrote:
What I suggest you do is set up some kind of forwarding for Postscatter
so it is sent to: wie...@porcupine.org. I wish everyone who suffers
Postscatter would do it.
OK, I realize there is obvious hate for Wietse in this post, so lets
ignore that for now...
Other than hangin
Hello guys
I deliver all my outgoing email to an smarthost.
This smarthost is sender dependant password protected. How can postfix make the
delivery?
I think, every time posrfix open a SMTP session with the smarthost after
authentication should deliver one message and close it. If deliver seve
Gábor Lénárt a écrit :
> Hei,
>
> Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
> check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only accept
> mails from outside which won't cause bounce on the mail store MTA later. My
> problem: there are some condition
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 11:50:26PM +0200, mouss wrote:
>
> In theory at least, a final delivery MTA could deliver directly, without
> a queue. of course, there is the problem of privileges. but for example,
> on a system where the whole mailstore belongs to a single (virtual)
> uid:gid, then the
Jozsef Kadlecsik a écrit :
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Gábor Lénárt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:55:40PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only
ac
Hi All,
We have weird issue with postsuper logs.
I deleted some 2 emails on one of our MTAs using a script(similar to below)
to delete mails destined a particular domain.
mailq | tail +2 | grep -v '^ *(' | awk 'BEGIN { RS = "" } { if ($1 !~
/(\*$)|(\!$)/ && ($8 ~ /(@domain.com)/) && $9 == "")
I use Linux. How i can configure dns for this setup? In the Servers i have
to configure the same hostname? And the reverse dns same too in all the
machines i want to user as load balancing?
-Mensagem original-
De: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
Em
Hi All,
We have weird issue with postsuper logs.
I deleted some 2 emails on one of our MTAs using a script(similar to below)
to delete mails destined a particular domain.
mailq | tail +2 | grep -v '^ *(' | awk 'BEGIN { RS = "" } { if ($1 !~
/(\*$)|(\!$)/ && ($8 ~ /(@domain.com)/) && $9 == "")
Using this way if i send 1.000 emails postfix send 500 each Server? This is
what i need.
Thanks,
Wilson
-Mensagem original-
De: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
Em nome de Victor Duchovni
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de julho de 2009 11:55
Para: 'Pos
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009, KLaM Postmaster wrote:
> I did "DKIM testing verifying postfix" , got 38400 results, most of
> which are how to implement DKIM, none of which were how to prove that
> what was setup works.
> I tried several other searches none of which turned up "reflector(s)" or
> were partic
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:41:25AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Wilson A. Galafassi Jr. wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Yes. I want to do load balancing. How i can implement this in postfix?
>
> # main.cf
>
> relayhost = [relay.local]
>
> # /etc/hosts
> 10.2.2.2 relay.local
> 10.2.2.3 relay.local
Yes. On BSD
Wilson A. Galafassi Jr. wrote:
Hello,
Yes. I want to do load balancing. How i can implement this in postfix?
# main.cf
relayhost = [relay.local]
# /etc/hosts
10.2.2.2 relay.local
10.2.2.3 relay.local
-- Noel Jones
Hello,
Yes. I want to do load balancing. How i can implement this in postfix?
-Mensagem original-
De: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
Em nome de Wietse Venema
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de julho de 2009 04:26
Para: Postfix users
Assunto: Re: RES: s
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:14:00PM +0200, G?bor L?n?rt wrote:
> First I had the hope that there is some chance to make postfix work like
> this, but yes, it's an MTA, not a filter/proxy. Just I was confused with
> some "before queue" things I had heared before, so I thought it's possible
> somehow
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:58:34PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
> > I think, protocol itself is just the communication between MTAs (it does not
> > store anything itself, MTAs which uses the SMTP can/must store things while
> > using SMTP to communicate with other MTAs).As proxy level firewalls ha
2009/7/3 Gábor Lénárt :
>> SMTP is a store-and-forward protocol, it does require queues. You cannot
>> simply wave aside this requirement.
>
> I think, protocol itself is just the communication between MTAs (it does not
> store anything itself, MTAs which uses the SMTP can/must store things while
>
G?bor L?n?rt:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:30:10PM +0200, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> > > > This is all very standard behaviour for an MTA. Recipient checking is
> > > > a very common task for most Postfix users. Regardless of what you
> > > > expect or want, SMTP is a store-and-forward protocol - qu
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:30:10PM +0200, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> > > This is all very standard behaviour for an MTA. Recipient checking is
> > > a very common task for most Postfix users. Regardless of what you
> > > expect or want, SMTP is a store-and-forward protocol - queues are a
> > > stron
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:55:40PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
> > > Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
> > > check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only
> > > accept
> >
> >
> > This is al
KLaM Postmaster:
> Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009, KLaM Postmaster wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Does anybody know how I can test whether my DKIM setup, keys etc, is
> >> correct.
> >>
> >
> > This is the *Postfix* mailing list. Next time, please spend at least a
> > minute or two on Go
Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009, KLaM Postmaster wrote:
>
>
>> Does anybody know how I can test whether my DKIM setup, keys etc, is
>> correct.
>>
>
> This is the *Postfix* mailing list. Next time, please spend at least a
> minute or two on Google.
>
>
>> Is there a public/ope
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Barney Desmond wrote:
> 2009/7/3 Gábor Lénárt :
>> Hei,
>>
>> Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
>> check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only accept
>
>
> Huh?
>
> This is all very standard behaviour f
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:55:40PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
> > Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
> > check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only accept
>
>
> This is all very standard behaviour for an MTA. Recipient checking is
2009/7/3 Gábor Lénárt :
> Hei,
>
> Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
> check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only accept
Huh?
This is all very standard behaviour for an MTA. Recipient checking is
a very common task for most Postfix
G?bor L?n?rt:
> Hei,
>
> Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
> check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only accept
> mails from outside which won't cause bounce on the mail store MTA later. My
> problem: there are some conditions cannot
This poster is terminated. I authorize the other postfix list admins
to terminate inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate behavior on
this list.
Wietse
Hei,
Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only accept
mails from outside which won't cause bounce on the mail store MTA later. My
problem: there are some conditions cannot be forecasted easily, I ca
Sorry, I misread your log. from=<> usually means a bounce of some kind -
could be legitimate. You'll have to see where the original mail was
sent to, the headers in the mail will give you a clue.
--kj
You just need to mention one domain on your transport maps and then
configure dns to have multiple MX records for same domain.
Don't forget to add the priority number for its host.
Postfix will automatically discover those mx records for you.
e.g.
mail.test.com
IN MX 10 mailserver1.test
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 10:23 +0100, kj wrote:
> K bharathan wrote:
> > the following is the log from my gateway to a subdomain; there are lot
> > <> sender mails are going; is it backscatter?; some are rejected on the
> > basis of header-checks; the owner of the subdomain has got a mail
> > ser
K bharathan wrote:
the following is the log from my gateway to a subdomain; there are lot
<> sender mails are going; is it backscatter?; some are rejected on the
basis of header-checks; the owner of the subdomain has got a mail
server; how can i prevent this
It becomes backscatter if the re
the following is the log from my gateway to a subdomain; there are lot <>
sender mails are going; is it backscatter?; some are rejected on the basis
of header-checks; the owner of the subdomain has got a mail server; how can
i prevent this
Jul 3 10:25:28 relay2 postfix/cleanup[13619]: 60F3A2122
On Fri, July 3, 2009 10:26 am, priscilla said:
> Yes I want only authenticated sender to send mails.
smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_sasl_authenticated, reject
This obviously assumes that this server isn't used to receive email from
the outside since ALL clients must authenticate.
Please do
On Fri, July 3, 2009 2:50 am, sosogh said:
> I just want to filter the inbound mails(whose destination is postifx)
> excluding outbound mails (whose destination is outside world)
>
> the content filter will filter all the mails
A proper solution to this requires you to have two separate instances
Yes I want only authenticated sender to send mails.
Regards
Priscilla
Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009, priscilla wrote:
We want to allow only authenticated sender to send mails.
The incomplete set of configuration variables you list below are unrelated to
this
Wilson A. Galafassi Jr.:
> Hello,
>
> I want to use multiple relayhost parameter because i want to use more than
> one relay to send emails. My serve will handle emails for only one domain.
> My need is to have multiple relayhost.
List the first host in "relayhost", and list the other hosts
in sm
46 matches
Mail list logo
