DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:33 AM:
> On 02/15/2010 01:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
>>>
>> Never post links to inform
On 02/15/2010 01:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
>
>
>> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
>>
> Never post links to information that requires a credit card in order to vie
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
Never post links to information that requires a credit card in order to view it.
I'm sure this breaks one if not many netiquette rules. ;
On 02/14/2010 10:17 PM, Jafaruddin Lie wrote:
>
> We do have a CISCO ASA 5520 that the outgoing mailserver sits behind,
> and I have done the no fixup protocol on the box to no avail.
> I have also enabled ICMP from that box to our internal mail server,
> and ping works so I figure the ICMP NO-FRAG
Our Postfix server (RHEL 4, stock-standard RPM) is playing up at the moment.
The mail server is our outgoing mail server (on the DMZ), and I noticed that
since last weekend we're having this issue:
A lot of the mails generated by our web applications (and manually, may I
add) were being queued up
On Tuesday 19 January 2010, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2010-01-18 David Koski wrote:
> > My mail server has been getting a fair amount of spam hits that have
> > been rejected but the sender address is spoofed with the recipient's
> > address. This generates an NDR to the recipient with the spam.
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/14/2010 12:52 PM:
> regexp:/etc/postfix/recipients.pcre
^^
Wietse is this a typo or am I about to learn something new about regexp/pcre
interchangeability/compatibility in Postfix? I'm assuming in the example above
that the
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 23:44 +0100, mouss wrote:
> Stefan Palme a écrit :
> >> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> >> check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
> >>
> >> // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
> >
> > Thanks for the hint. But the content of "rec
Stefan Palme a écrit :
>> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
>> check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
>>
>> // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
>
> Thanks for the hint. But the content of "recipients_default" must
> also be stored in LDAP (because some a
Stefan Palme:
> On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 14:21 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms
> > in Postfix including transport_maps, relayhost, address classes, etc.
>
> Ok, but if I have a very simple setup without any per-whatever
> transport
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 14:21 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms
> in Postfix including transport_maps, relayhost, address classes, etc.
Ok, but if I have a very simple setup without any per-whatever
transport_maps, relayhost, etc. it
Stefan Palme:
> Hi,
>
> Is the effect of
>
> content_filter = smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
>
> the same as
>
> transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transports
>
> /etc/postfix/transports:
> *smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms
in Pos
Geert Hendrickx:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Stefan Palme wrote:
> >
> > > check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> > > check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
> > >
> > > // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
> >
> > Thanks for the hint. But t
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Stefan Palme wrote:
>
> > check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> > check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
> >
> > // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
>
> Thanks for the hint. But the content of "recipients_default
Hi,
Is the effect of
content_filter = smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
the same as
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transports
/etc/postfix/transports:
*smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
?
Thanks and regards
-stefan-
Stefan Palme:
> Hi,
>
> I guess I'm just temporarily blind, but I can't find a solution.
> I have a smtpd_recipient_restriction like this:
>
> ..., check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients, permit
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
>
> // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
Thanks for the hint. But the content of "recipients_default" must
also be stored in LDAP (because some admin with LDAP access privilege
* Stefan Palme :
> Hi,
>
> I guess I'm just temporarily blind, but I can't find a solution.
> I have a smtpd_recipient_restriction like this:
>
> ..., check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients, permit
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
check_recipient_access pcre:/et
Hi,
I guess I'm just temporarily blind, but I can't find a solution.
I have a smtpd_recipient_restriction like this:
..., check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients, permit
with /etc/postfix/recipients:
us...@example.com REJECT don't use this!
us...@example.net DEFER s
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.7.0.html]
Postfix stable release 2.7.0 is available. For the past several
releases, the focus has moved towards improving the code and
documentation, and updating the system for changing en
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:36:22AM -0500, Alex wrote:
> I have a Linux server running an older version of postfix and
> webmail for users to send mail. Since localhost is trusted in
> $mynetworks, a connection from there can send mail to any
> recipient. Since squirrelmail connects directly to loca
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Alex wrote:
> I have a Linux server running an older version of postfix and webmail
> for users to send mail. Since localhost is trusted in $mynetworks, a
> connection from there can send mail to any recipient. Since
> squirrelmail connects directly to localhost, any mail that
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
> On 13-Feb-2010, at 15:15, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > You missed a whole paragraph in my response:
>
> No, I just didn't respond to it as there didn't seem to be any need.
Postfix does not log every single status code it sends to SMTP clients;
that was the
23 matches
Mail list logo
