Asif Iqbal:
> I am guessing I need to install postfix as the front-end, will be
> installed on a separate new box.
> Then use the qmail, currently running on the existing system, as the back-end.
See; http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html#firewall
Wietse
Oh and here is another thought.
Go back to the very first failure occurrence for draxlerinsurance.com and
see what the cause of that very first rejection was.
--
From:
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 7:42 PM
To: "Asai" ;
Subject: Re: Connection R
Have you verified your MTA's are not on a Black/Block list? Maybe
draxlerinsurance.com has firewalled you off. I know I would.
http://www.mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx
[r...@vps1 ~]# telnet 67.227.17.37 25
Trying 67.227.17.37...
Connected to 67.227.17.37.
Escape character is '^]'.
220
***
On Jul 3, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Asai wrote:
> Thank you for your responses. Is there anything I can do on my end?
To put it simply, you're going to need to find a way to contact them postmaster
on the other end and let them know that legitimate mail is being blocked. You
will first need to find a
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I am planning to migrate from qmail to postfix.
>
> Currently our qmail uses QMAILQUEUE, qmail-scanner, clamd,
> spamassassin, rbldnsd, greylite, qmail-pop, qmail-ldap, virtuals and
> ezmlm.
> (I hope I did not miss anything)
I am pre
Hi All
I am planning to migrate from qmail to postfix.
Currently our qmail uses QMAILQUEUE, qmail-scanner, clamd,
spamassassin, rbldnsd, greylite, qmail-pop, qmail-ldap, virtuals and
ezmlm.
(I hope I did not miss anything)
I found few suggestions from the following articles
http://www.irbs.ne
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Stan Hoeppner
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 9:54 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Postfix 2.7 for RHEL 5?
>
> Morten P.D. Stevens put forth on 7/3/2010 2
On 07/03/2010 11:38 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Asai wrote:
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 11:20 PM, Asai wrote:
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 09:14 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wro
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 02:24:20PM -0700, Asai wrote:
> Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>> On 07/03/2010 11:20 PM, Asai wrote:
>>> Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 09:14 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wrote:
>> OK. Has anyone successfully been able to work around thi
On 07/03/2010 11:24 PM, Asai wrote:
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 11:20 PM, Asai wrote:
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 09:14 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wrote:
OK. Has anyone successfully been able to work around this issue?
The only way is to have the
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 11:20 PM, Asai wrote:
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 09:14 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wrote:
OK. Has anyone successfully been able to work around this issue?
The only way is to have the admin for the CISCO PIX disable the
On 07/03/2010 11:20 PM, Asai wrote:
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 09:14 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wrote:
OK. Has anyone successfully been able to work around this issue?
The only way is to have the admin for the CISCO PIX disable the stupid
smtp fixup garbag
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 07/03/2010 09:14 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wrote:
OK. Has anyone successfully been able to work around this issue?
The only way is to have the admin for the CISCO PIX disable the stupid
smtp fixup garbage on the CISCO box.
As far
On 07/03/2010 09:14 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wrote:
OK. Has anyone successfully been able to work around this issue?
The only way is to have the admin for the CISCO PIX disable the stupid
smtp fixup garbage on the CISCO box.
As far as I know, there is NE
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 02:53:44PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Morten P.D. Stevens put forth on 7/3/2010 2:40 PM:
> > Does anyone know backported Postfix 2.6.x or 2.7.x RPM packages
> > for RHEL5?
>
> This binary rpm is for x86-64 only:
>
> http://ftp.wl0.org/official/2.7/RPMS-rhel5-x86_64/pos
Morten P.D. Stevens put forth on 7/3/2010 2:40 PM:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know backported Postfix 2.6.x or 2.7.x RPM packages for RHEL5?
This binary rpm is for x86-64 only:
http://ftp.wl0.org/official/2.7/RPMS-rhel5-x86_64/postfix-2.7.1-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
You'll have to google more than I did to
Hi,
Does anyone know backported Postfix 2.6.x or 2.7.x RPM packages for RHEL5?
Thank you.
Best regards,
Morten
On 2010-07-02 7:20 PM, Asai wrote:
> OK. Has anyone successfully been able to work around this issue?
The only way is to have the admin for the CISCO PIX disable the stupid
smtp fixup garbage on the CISCO box.
As far as I know, there is NEVER any reason to have this enabled on an
internet facing
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
> How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
Why?
--
Sahil Tandon
On 07/03/2010 08:45 PM, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
This would work well:
"v=spf1 mx include:cloud9.net ~all"
http://openspf.org/
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=Postfix.org
Um.. and then what ?
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
This would work well:
"v=spf1 mx include:cloud9.net ~all"
http://openspf.org/
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=Postfix.org
Asif Iqbal:
> Is there a nice diagram of these flow charts
>
> http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html
Postfix "beta" has a big-picture.gif file. Postfix as evolved since
then, and it is no longer practical to put everything into one diagram.
Wietse
> I was looking for something like one
22 matches
Mail list logo
