Jason Bailey, Sun Advocate Webmaster put forth on 6/22/2010 10:32 PM:
> (Note: I do have to disclose one piece of information. Recently our
> server was automatically blacklisted by our ISP for spam that was being
> relayed through our system from a series of external sources. I've
> tested both s
Steffan A. Cline put forth on 6/22/2010 8:01 PM:
> It's a long post. Sorry.
Yeah, it was long, and probably overly ambitious for a single thread topic.
Instead of addressing your questions about individual main.cf parameter
settings and policy services, I'm going to make a few suggestions which s
Hello all,
This question has probably been asked before in some form or another,
but I can't seem to find a post that is exactly like the issue I'm
struggling with (maybe I'm just blind). In any event, I hope that at
least one of you might be able to help me.
I've got two SLES 11 mail server
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:00:56PM -0600, Patrick H. wrote:
> I was attempting to set soft_bounce=yes on the smtpd service in master.cf
> only to find that it didnt work. This was unexpected as the man pages
> indicate otherwise. 'man 8 smtpd' lists soft_bounce under 'trouble shooting
> control
I am using postfix with Virtualmin and am trying to follow numerous
tutorials on spam prevention/handling. I have tried to apply the following
to the postfix main.cf file.
smtpd_delay_reject = yes
smtpd_helo_required = yes
smtpd_helo_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_non_fqdn_helo
I was attempting to set soft_bounce=yes on the smtpd service in
master.cf only to find that it didnt work. This was unexpected as the
man pages indicate otherwise. 'man 8 smtpd' lists soft_bounce under
'trouble shooting controls'. But I've found that instead it works when
placed on the 'smtp' s
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 6/22/2010 6:50 AM:
> Zitat von Ram :
>> Does that mean I can have them over different partitions on different
>> disks. I had initially assumed all the postfix spool must be on the
>> same partition
>
> From my understanding the spool must be on the same partitio
Philippe Chaintreuil a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> I have a some what convoluted setup that I'd like to make a
> modification to, and was looking for some pointers.
>
> The Long-winded situation:
>
> I run a small host that servers as a mail server for multiple domains
> (about 25). Al
Victoriano Giralt a écrit :
> On 22/6/10 12:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-06-22 2:18 AM, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
>>> If you manage to cut them before they hit any real address you avoid
>>> crud entering your user's mailboxes.
>> It's called recipient validation, and if you aren't doing it,
On 06/22/2010 02:30 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
I saw fail2ban discussed in another thread. I was wondering if anyone
here have used it to block based on spamtraps. I want to set up a
number of dummy users and splatter their email addresses where
spammers would get at them (e.g. white on white text
I saw fail2ban discussed in another thread. I was wondering if anyone
here have used it to block based on spamtraps. I want to set up a
number of dummy users and splatter their email addresses where
spammers would get at them (e.g. white on white text on web pages,
etc). Then ban the IPs that tr
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:48:11AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Keld Simonsen:
> > > > The VERP_README says:
> > > >
> > > > > In order to make VERP useful with majordomo etc. mailing lists, you
> > > > > would configure the list manager to submit mail according to one of
> > > > > the followin
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 06:04:37PM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:53:37AM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
> >
> >> allow_mail_to_commands and allow_mail_to_files according to
> >> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html are global for all u
Hello all,
I have a some what convoluted setup that I'd like to make a
modification to, and was looking for some pointers.
The Long-winded situation:
I run a small host that servers as a mail server for multiple domains
(about 25). All but one of these is a fairly standard setup
* Chris :
> I am running postfix as a SMTP front-end to my Exchange 2007 system.
>
> When Exchange goes down, email is bounced back to the sender as undeliverable.
Why? Show some logs for such a case
> How can I setup postfix to 'spool' email until the backend SMTP server is
> online?
That's t
I am running postfix as a SMTP front-end to my Exchange 2007 system.
When Exchange goes down, email is bounced back to the sender as undeliverable.
How can I setup postfix to 'spool' email until the backend SMTP server is
online?
I have enclosed my main.cf, master.cf, and transport configs (at
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:53:37AM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
>
>> allow_mail_to_commands and allow_mail_to_files according to
>> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html are global for all users. I have a
>> need do disallow processing of .forward for most user (defaul
Keld Simonsen:
> > > The VERP_README says:
> > >
> > > > In order to make VERP useful with majordomo etc. mailing lists, you
> > > > would configure the list manager to submit mail according to one of the
> > > > following two forms:
> > > >
> > > > Postfix 2.3 and later:
> > > >
> > > >% se
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 08:39:31AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Keld Simonsen:
> > > > > Another approach is to use VERP which sends one message per
> > > > > recipient and encodes the recipent in the bounce address.
> > > > >
> > > > > See http://www.postfix.org/VERP_README.html
> > > >
> > > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 22/6/10 16:47, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> We DO recipient validation. I'm talking about cutting off the client
>> before they hit a good one. The point I was making is that if you use
>> something like fail2ban that detect an IP address that is d
On 2010-06-22 8:47 AM, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
> On 22/6/10 12:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-06-22 2:18 AM, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
>>> If you manage to cut them before they hit any real address you avoid
>>> crud entering your user's mailboxes.
> We DO recipient validation. I'm talking a
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:53:37AM +0200, Mariusz Kie?pi?ski wrote:
> allow_mail_to_commands and allow_mail_to_files according to
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html are global for all users. I have a
> need do disallow processing of .forward for most user (default behavior)
> however some of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 22/6/10 12:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-06-22 2:18 AM, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
>> If you manage to cut them before they hit any real address you avoid
>> crud entering your user's mailboxes.
>
> It's called recipient validation, and if
Keld Simonsen:
> > > > Another approach is to use VERP which sends one message per
> > > > recipient and encodes the recipent in the bounce address.
> > > >
> > > > See http://www.postfix.org/VERP_README.html
> > >
> > > I am trying the VERP way, and have a little difficulty to understand what
>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:34:17AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Keld Simonsen:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 08:52:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Keld Simonsen:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > I am running majordomo with postfix for a number of
Zitat von Ram :
On my central postfix server I do typically 100k mail transactions per
hour. Postfix 2.7 on a Dual Quadcore Xeon 4 GB Ram RHEL5 box.
Sometimes this happens that mails move very slowly from incoming queue
to the active queue.
I think I got the basic hygiene right:
This serve
Keld Simonsen:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 08:52:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Keld Simonsen:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I am running majordomo with postfix for a number of email list, and I
> > > have some trouble tracking down bounces. I thought t
Actually I have two mail/www/ftp systems for two different domains on
a single piece of hardware. Instead of using a virtualization I chose
chroot as a more efficient method of using system resources and a way
to separate two independent servers.
The hardware has two network interfaces, one connect
On 2010-06-22 2:18 AM, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
> If you manage to cut them before they hit any real address you avoid
> crud entering your user's mailboxes.
It's called recipient validation, and if you aren't doing it, you're
doing it wrong.
> We have a testing list with a funny familiar Spanish
Ok...I wasn't seeing it but it was simple.
The /etc/postfix/transport is correctly configured. I just needed to add
in main.cf this:
"transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport"
because by default the value is empty.
Thanks!
On 06/22/2010 11:59 AM, Daniele Davolio wrote:
Seems strange bu
Am 22.06.2010 11:48, schrieb nunatarsuaq:
> I didnt' mention that but there's an extra interface in this system
> connected to the local network.
> When smtp_bind_address is set to the public IP and I'm trying to send
> something from LAN I get the log message:
>
> Jun 22 11:44:32 server emaster_p
Seems strange but I need to route a local and unknown to DNS domain, to
an internal SMTP server.
Here the situation: I have an internal mail server running postfix 2.3.8
and Courier Imap. The server is the official MX record for our company
domains.
I have also a fax server and we implemented th
Hello
allow_mail_to_commands and allow_mail_to_files according to
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html are global for all users. I have a
need do disallow processing of .forward for most user (default behavior)
however some of them should still have a possibility of usage .forward
file. In the
I didnt' mention that but there's an extra interface in this system
connected to the local network.
When smtp_bind_address is set to the public IP and I'm trying to send
something from LAN I get the log message:
Jun 22 11:44:32 server emaster_postfix/smtp[6940]: D6AC76802D:
to=, relay=192.168.1.10
On my central postfix server I do typically 100k mail transactions per
hour. Postfix 2.7 on a Dual Quadcore Xeon 4 GB Ram RHEL5 box.
Sometimes this happens that mails move very slowly from incoming queue
to the active queue.
I think I got the basic hygiene right:
This server has absolutely
Am 22.06.2010 10:40, schrieb nunatarsuaq:
> I'm using chroot environments as a form of virtualization of two mail systems.
> The main system has a basic ethernet interface eth0 with IP0 and two
> aliases: eth0:1 and eth0:2 with IP1 and IP2.
> Each chrooted system is running its own postfix with IPx
I'm using chroot environments as a form of virtualization of two mail systems.
The main system has a basic ethernet interface eth0 with IP0 and two
aliases: eth0:1 and eth0:2 with IP1 and IP2.
Each chrooted system is running its own postfix with IPx configured in
/etc/postfix/master.cf.
The proble
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 22/6/10 0:01, mouss wrote:
> motty.cruz a écrit :
>> Hello all,
>> What is the best way to protect against directory attack?
>> [snip]
>
> how about: don't care?
>
>
> # postlog.pl
>
> Recipient unknown..: 58.35 %
> ...
>
38 matches
Mail list logo
