/dev/rob0 put forth on 12/5/2009 8:44 PM:
> This post might seem like a gratuitous me-too, and it partly is, but
> the thing that concerned me, as one of the people responsible for
> the Spam-L list, was the rejection, in the original post:
>
>> Dec 4 13:39:15 greer postfix/smtpd[7124]: NOQUEUE:
Sahil Tandon put forth on 12/5/2009 1:49 PM:
> Why the hostility?
Frustration, lack of rest, likely. Apologies.
> The others are just trying to help. :) Mouss
> already answered your question correctly, but you should review:
> http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html to understand ho
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 12/5/2009 9:03 AM:
> I think what you mean to do here is check_client_access (as opposed to
> check_recipient_access). You could also use check_helo_access, but then
> you'd have to add that machine's HELO hostname to the access map.
The reason for the check_recipien
Stefan Förster put forth on 12/5/2009 8:51 AM:
> * Stan Hoeppner :
>> Two classes before smtpd_helo_restrictions should have triggered
>> accepting the email. The message should have never made it to the HELO
>> checks. It should have been accepted in smtpd_client_restrictions or
>> smtpd_sender_
mouss put forth on 12/5/2009 7:50 AM:
> you need to read the docs :)
Isn't that always the case here. :)
> an OK in an smtpd_foo_restrictions skips further checks in _that_
> restriction. so an OK in smtpd_client_restrictions skips further checks
> and goes to smtpd_helo_restrictions.
Aha! Tha
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 05:34:03AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> You'll likely have to go for the fruit at the top of the tree to
> get the right answer. I've been on the top branch all day and
> can't figure it out, thus my email to the list.
Climb down from the tree. Your answer was among the f
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 08:54:01PM +0100, Stefan F??rster wrote:
> Now, about logging - I'd be really grateful if the existing logging
> functionality could be extended in a way so that the pre-queue
> content filter's response is logged.
>
> I know that it is actually the content filter's job to
Ed W:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Ed W:
> >
> >> To clarify the question - the goal is if someone connects via the
> >> network (not local sendmail command) and the transcript says "RCPT TO:
> >> " that this is subsequently bounced as being an invalid
> >>
> >
> > To summarize my other re
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Two classes before smtpd_helo_restrictions should have triggered
> accepting the email. The message should have never made it to the HELO
> checks. It should have been accepted in smtpd_client_restrictions or
> smtpd_sender_restrictions. Both classes
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:36:06 +
Ed W replied:
>If this is not possible then can I please make a feature request for
>this? At least in the case of my users it's almost exclusively a typo
>(autocomplete gremlin due to Microsoft email programs..) and not
>intended for delivery to the local m
Terry L. Inzauro wrote:
> I am trying to force submission (with SMTP auth via SASL) clients on tcp/587
> to use TLS. Is there anyway to do this? I ran
> across smtp_enforce_tls, but this seems to force any and all SMTP clients to
> use TLS which is not what I want (this is a
> public facing mach
I am trying to force submission (with SMTP auth via SASL) clients on tcp/587 to
use TLS. Is there anyway to do this? I ran
across smtp_enforce_tls, but this seems to force any and all SMTP clients to
use TLS which is not what I want (this is a
public facing machine).
Will I need to implement s
Ed W a écrit :
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Ed W:
>>
>>> To clarify the question - the goal is if someone connects via the
>>> network (not local sendmail command) and the transcript says "RCPT TO:
>>> " that this is subsequently bounced as being an invalid
>>>
>>
>> To summarize my other r
Wietse Venema wrote:
Ed W:
To clarify the question - the goal is if someone connects via the
network (not local sendmail command) and the transcript says "RCPT TO:
" that this is subsequently bounced as being an invalid
To summarize my other response, by definition an address without
Ed W:
> To clarify the question - the goal is if someone connects via the
> network (not local sendmail command) and the transcript says "RCPT TO:
> " that this is subsequently bounced as being an invalid
To summarize my other response, by definition an address without
domain delivers to the sa
Ed W:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Ed W:
> >
> >> Hi, I'm using postfix 2.5.7 and having some trouble with the server
> >> domain being appended to incomplete sender addresses. I have set
> >>
> >> # postconf|grep -e rewrite -e append -e myorigin -e mydomain -e
> >> local_header
> >> append_at_
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 12/5/2009 1:38 AM:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I can't figure out why my whitelist entry for 204.238.179.0/24 is being
You rejected the HELO hostname, not the IP address. What is
reject_unknown_helo_hostname going to do when your DNS is broken?
Yo
* Stan Hoeppner :
> Two classes before smtpd_helo_restrictions should have triggered
> accepting the email. The message should have never made it to the HELO
> checks. It should have been accepted in smtpd_client_restrictions or
> smtpd_sender_restrictions. Both classes come before
> smtpd_helo_
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> Stefan Förster put forth on 12/5/2009 6:16 AM:
>
>> Whitelist doesn't trigger because you are performing a check for the
>> value of the "RCPT TO" parameter, not the "HELO" or "EHLO".
>>
>> If this isn't what you were looking for I don't have any idea what
>> your questio
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> I can't figure out why my whitelist entry for 204.238.179.0/24 is being
> ignored. If not for a transient DNS failure this afternoon I'd not have
> known this was broken. The check_client_access whitelist entry _should_
> have triggered before reject_unknown_client_hostn
Stefan Förster put forth on 12/5/2009 6:16 AM:
> Whitelist doesn't trigger because you are performing a check for the
> value of the "RCPT TO" parameter, not the "HELO" or "EHLO".
>
> If this isn't what you were looking for I don't have any idea what
> your question is.
You're not seeing the for
William Jordan a écrit :
> [snip]
>
> Thanks /dev/rob0 I am searching through the archives now. What is odd is
> that this is not reproducible nor is it affecting any other user with
> Outlook 2003.
check the configuration of outlook. make sure it is configured to
authenticate.
consider enabli
Ed W wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Ed W:
Hi, I'm using postfix 2.5.7 and having some trouble with the server
domain being appended to incomplete sender addresses. I have set
# postconf|grep -e rewrite -e append -e myorigin -e mydomain -e local_header
append_at_myorigin = yes
append_dot_mydo
Wietse Venema wrote:
Ed W:
Hi, I'm using postfix 2.5.7 and having some trouble with the server
domain being appended to incomplete sender addresses. I have set
# postconf|grep -e rewrite -e append -e myorigin -e mydomain -e local_header
append_at_myorigin = yes
append_dot_mydomain = no
loc
Yes,
i solved problem using how result_attribute a single-valued attribute.
Thanks
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:57:07AM +0100, Giovanni Mancuso wrote:
>
>
>> result_attribute = domains
>> result_format = [127.0.0.1]:2501
>> expansion_limit = 1
>>
>> But i have:
>> postfi
* Stefan Förster :
> Rejection message:
>
> | Dec 4 13:39:15 greer postfix/smtpd[7124]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> | unknown[204.238.179.8]: 450 4.7.1 : Helo command rejected:
> | Host not found; from=
> | to= proto=ESMTP helo=
>
> Obviously triggered by the "reject_unknown_helo_hostname" in:
Hallo Stan,
* Stan Hoeppner :
> Stefan Förster put forth on 12/5/2009 5:46 AM:
> > * Stan Hoeppner :
> >> smtpd_helo_required = yes
> >> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
> >> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access
> >
> > Did you mean "check_helo_access"?
>
> What does this have to do
Stefan Förster put forth on 12/5/2009 5:46 AM:
> * Stan Hoeppner :
>> smtpd_helo_required = yes
>> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
>> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access
>
> Did you mean "check_helo_access"?
What does this have to do with the question I asked? How would this
cause
* Stan Hoeppner :
> smtpd_helo_required = yes
> smtpd_helo_restrictions =
> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access
Did you mean "check_helo_access"?
Stefan
> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
> reject_invalid_helo_hostname
> reject_unknown_helo_hostname
>
>
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 12/5/2009 1:38 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I can't figure out why my whitelist entry for 204.238.179.0/24 is being
>> ignored. If not for a transient DNS failure this afternoon I'd not have
>> known this was broken. The check_client_access whitelist entry _should_
30 matches
Mail list logo
