Hello,
I am using postfix version 2.5.6.
For years I have been using the settings:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_destination,
permit
smtpd_client_restrictions =
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reje
Glenn English:
>
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > So why must this be a Postfix-as-proxy, instead of a complete
> > Postfix-with-queue instance?
>
> Like I said, I'm not at all sure it does. But I'm told that there
> should be an SMTP reverse proxy running on the firewall
On Apr 1, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> So why must this be a Postfix-as-proxy, instead of a complete
> Postfix-with-queue instance?
Like I said, I'm not at all sure it does. But I'm told that there should be an
SMTP reverse proxy running on the firewall to protect the full server fr
On Apr 1, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If you want all the edge security managed by one device
I don't. There's a border router with ACLs, and everybody has a reasonably
intelligent packet filter. I'm just trying for this one fairly fancy box in the
middle for inspection and routin
Glenn English put forth on 4/1/2010 5:42 PM:
> I was asking about Postfix running as a daemon on the firewall computer that
> handles routing and inspecting traffic between the WAN, the DMZ, and the LAN.
> This Postfix would intercept and inspect incoming SMTP connections (and drop
> some) befo
Glenn English:
>
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > Were you asking about using Postfix as a proxy in front of internal SMTP
> > servers, or using firewall reverse-proxy SMTP support to sit in front of
> > Postfix?
>
> I was asking about Postfix running as a daemon on the
On Apr 1, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> Were you asking about using Postfix as a proxy in front of internal SMTP
> servers, or using firewall reverse-proxy SMTP support to sit in front of
> Postfix?
I was asking about Postfix running as a daemon on the firewall computer that
handle
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:52:46PM -0600, Glenn English wrote:
>
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > What is the "it" that has to be done for "security reasons".
>
> Reverse proxy-ing servers on the firewall. The idea, as I understand it, is
> to keep badness from gettin
On Apr 1, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> What is the "it" that has to be done for "security reasons".
Reverse proxy-ing servers on the firewall. The idea, as I understand it, is to
keep badness from getting to the servers. I can kinda understand that for HTTP
-- ACLs based on UR* a
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:58:09PM +0200, Daniel Cizinsky wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:40:04PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> >> Daniel Cizinsky at lists
> >
> >
> > This is expected behavior. Mail released from hold with "postsuper -H"
> > always gets at least one chance to be delivered rega
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:40:04PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>> Daniel Cizinsky at lists
>
>
> This is expected behavior. Mail released from hold with "postsuper -H"
> always gets at least one chance to be delivered regardless of its age.
Thanks a lot!
But IMHO it's not really comprehensible from
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Daniel Cizinsky wrote:
> Although documentation is very clear about it following didn't work as
> expected:
> 1. I put a message, which wasn't able to go through to recipients on hold
> (it was sent on 17th March, on hold from about 18th) using postsuper -h ID.
> 2. Today I re
On 4/1/2010 3:27 PM, Daniel Cizinsky wrote:
Hello!
Although documentation is very clear about it following didn't work as
expected:
1. I put a message, which wasn't able to go through to recipients on hold
(it was sent on 17th March, on hold from about 18th) using postsuper -h ID.
2. Today I rel
Hello!
Although documentation is very clear about it following didn't work as
expected:
1. I put a message, which wasn't able to go through to recipients on hold
(it was sent on 17th March, on hold from about 18th) using postsuper -h ID.
2. Today I released the message using postsuper -H ID. I wan
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:50:04PM -0600, Glenn English wrote:
>
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> >> Is it possible to use postfix as a reverse proxy for my SMTP server?
> >
> > Yes, but why?
>
> Because I was told over on the mailop list that it needs to be done
> for
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Stephen Carville:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Stephen Carville
>> wrote:
>> > Is there way to have postfix relay _any_ mail from $mynetworks but
>> > still check other mail against the relay_recipient_maps?
>> >
>> > I have been forw
On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> Is it possible to use postfix as a reverse proxy for my SMTP server?
>
> Yes, but why?
Because I was told over on the mailop list that it needs to be done for
security reasons, and I'm looking into whether to believe it or not.
Thanks to
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:49:50AM -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> Is it possible to use postfix as a reverse proxy for my SMTP server?
Yes, but why?
> I think what I'm asking is does postfix do its UBE and protocol checks
> *before* it sends to a smarthost.
Yes, but when Postfix is a proxy, ther
On 4/1/2010 12:49 PM, Glenn English wrote:
Is it possible to use postfix as a reverse proxy for my SMTP server?
I think what I'm asking is does postfix do its UBE and protocol checks *before*
it sends to a smarthost.
If not, do you know of a way to reverse proxy SMTP? How about POP3 and IMAP?
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:50:17PM +0200, Emmanuel Fust?? wrote:
> Could I achieve my goal with modifying the relay line in the master.cf
> like:
>
> relay unix - - - - - smtp
> -o smtp_fallback_relay=
> -o relayhost= [a.b.c.d]
No.
> Or should
Is it possible to use postfix as a reverse proxy for my SMTP server?
I think what I'm asking is does postfix do its UBE and protocol checks *before*
it sends to a smarthost.
If not, do you know of a way to reverse proxy SMTP? How about POP3 and IMAP?
--
Glenn English
g...@slsware.com
Stephen Carville:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Stephen Carville
> wrote:
> > Is there way to have postfix relay _any_ mail from $mynetworks but
> > still check other mail against the relay_recipient_maps?
> >
> > I have been forwarding bad addresses to the held desk but the
> > developers te
On 4/1/2010 12:11 PM, Stephen Carville wrote:
Is there way to have postfix relay _any_ mail from $mynetworks but
still check other mail against the relay_recipient_maps?
I have been forwarding bad addresses to the held desk but the
developers tell me they have to see the original subject line.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Stephen Carville
wrote:
> Is there way to have postfix relay _any_ mail from $mynetworks but
> still check other mail against the relay_recipient_maps?
>
> I have been forwarding bad addresses to the held desk but the
> developers tell me they have to see the origi
Is there way to have postfix relay _any_ mail from $mynetworks but
still check other mail against the relay_recipient_maps?
I have been forwarding bad addresses to the held desk but the
developers tell me they have to see the original subject line.
--
Stephen Carville
Emmanuel Fust??:
> Le 01/04/2010 15:20, Wietse Venema a ?crit :
> > Emmanuel Fust?:
> >> relay_relayhost = [a.b.c.d]
> >
> > As always, use "postconf -n" output when reporting a problem. This
> > would have revealed immediately that relay_relayhost is a mistake.
> >
> > Wietse
>
> Ok so "trans
Le 01/04/2010 15:20, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Emmanuel Fust�:
relay_relayhost = [a.b.c.d]
As always, use "postconf -n" output when reporting a problem. This
would have revealed immediately that relay_relayhost is a mistake.
Wietse
Ok so "transport"_"postfix-conf-parameter" is no long
Emmanuel Fust?:
> relay_relayhost = [a.b.c.d]
As always, use "postconf -n" output when reporting a problem. This
would have revealed immediately that relay_relayhost is a mistake.
Wietse
Hello,
Relevant config parameters:
parent_domain_matches_subdomains =
relay_domains = hash:some_relay_domains_map
relay_relayhost = [a.b.c.d]
some_relay_domains_map contain:
xxx.comx
yyy.comx
aaa.xxx.comx
bbb.yyy.comx
symptom:
messages for xxx.com and yyy.com are correctly rel
Wietse Venema:
> Vernon A. Fort:
> > The maximal_queue_lifetime-30s was for testing only - its normally set
> > for 1d. The sole issues is to prevent mail from bouncing back if we
> > don't get the encrypted volume mounted and cyrus started back up soon
> > enough. A reasonable example would b
* Jerry :
> While inspecting my maillogs this morning, I came upon this entry:
>
> Apr 1 07:22:11 scorpio postfix/smtp[4534]: 24E842285F: enabling PIX
> workarounds: disable_esmtp delay_dotcrlf for imh.rsys4.net[12.130.135.43]:25
>
> I don't believe I have ever seen that before. What does it me
Simon Waters napsal(a):
On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
Is there any solution?
I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
sender. Is it possible with postfix?
As Ralph says SRS will do this.
However I looked at this recently for a project, where
On 3/31/10 11:03 PM, Vernon A. Fort at vf...@provident-solutions.com wrote:
> The maximal_queue_lifetime-30s was for testing only - its normally set
> for 1d.
One day is pretty short. The default is five days. Although things are a lot
more reliable these days, it's still possible for an unatt
On Thursday 01 April 2010 12:38:29 J.R.Ewing wrote:
>
> Is there any solution?
> I have idea to move senders address to "reply to" field and write new
> sender. Is it possible with postfix?
As Ralph says SRS will do this.
However I looked at this recently for a project, where I thought I'd need
* Jerry :
> While inspecting my maillogs this morning, I came upon this entry:
>
> Apr 1 07:22:11 scorpio postfix/smtp[4534]: 24E842285F: enabling PIX
> workarounds: disable_esmtp delay_dotcrlf for imh.rsys4.net[12.130.135.43]:25
>
> I don't believe I have ever seen that before. What does it me
While inspecting my maillogs this morning, I came upon this entry:
Apr 1 07:22:11 scorpio postfix/smtp[4534]: 24E842285F: enabling PIX
workarounds: disable_esmtp delay_dotcrlf for imh.rsys4.net[12.130.135.43]:25
I don't believe I have ever seen that before. What does it mean and
should I be wor
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> Yes, SRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Rewriting_Scheme
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450
* J.R.Ewing :
> Hello people,
>
> Iam trying to solv a problem with relaying. I want to setup a
> distribution list for one domain, where will postfix only relay email
> for mydomain.com to selected users email addresses. No local
> mailboxes, only realaying list. Its quite simple, but.. but if I
Hello people,
Iam trying to solv a problem with relaying. I want to setup a
distribution list for one domain, where will postfix only relay email
for mydomain.com to selected users email addresses. No local mailboxes,
only realaying list. Its quite simple, but.. but if I try to relay email
co
Vernon A. Fort:
> The maximal_queue_lifetime-30s was for testing only - its normally set
> for 1d. The sole issues is to prevent mail from bouncing back if we
> don't get the encrypted volume mounted and cyrus started back up soon
> enough. A reasonable example would be if the server rebooted
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM, mouss wrote:
> Charlie Root a écrit :
>> I've been fighting with it for a long time but still can't get the desirable:
>> - forward all local mail sent to valid unix users (+postmaster and
>> abuse redirects of course) to specific email address.
>>
>> I.e. forward
Hi all, I'm having a hard time getting smtp auth going. I've been trying
to do it through authdaemond, but I get the error:
Mar 29 09:53:07 bravo postfix/smtpd[38173]: warning: SASL authentication
problem: unknown password verifier
Mar 29 09:53:07 bravo postfix/smtpd[38173]: warning:
unknown[1
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:04:59AM +0200, mouss wrote:
> Steve a écrit :
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0200
> >> Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> >> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> >> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 201
43 matches
Mail list logo
