Hi,
I'm using zimbra with Postfix as MTA.
I got the following error message which indicate mail rejection based on
hostname not find.
Aug 26 04:05:49 courriel postfix/smtpd[17755]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown[67.210.171.12]: 450 4.7.1 Client host rejected: cannot find
your hostname, [67.2
Lie, Jafaruddin:
> There's an ASA 5500 inbetween, but the SMTP fixup protocol has been turned
> off,
Prove it.
Wietse
Except that this is sending to our internal Exchange 2003 server, not
outgoing.
Here's the scenario:
We have 2 servers that act as incoming mail server. One is to receive mails
from the Internet, a Barracuda box. This box is running well.
Another box, this is the problematic one, is to relay mail
On 8/25/2010 6:20 PM, Rob Foehl wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Noel Jones wrote:
The user interface would be familiar to anyone using rbl
checks. Sample documentation under the appropriate
smtpd_mumble_restrictions section:
- permit_dnswl_client dnswl_domain=d.d.d.d
Accept the request when the re
Updated Proposal for weighted dnsXl support in postscreen.
(Change parameter names to all start with postscreen_dns* for
easy reading in postconf. Get rid of negative site weight
values [the client dnsxl score total may still be negative].
Add filter octet range docs.)
(The weight ranges d
On 8/26/2010 4:14 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The more precise solution is to implement wildcards with ranges:
>
> example.com=127.0.[0-128].3*1
> example.com=127.0.[0-5,6-9].3*1
Noel Jones:
> I like the range idea. You want proto docs reflecting that
> syntax?
Yes, that would help everyone to u
On 8/26/2010 4:14 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
On 8/26/2010 2:28 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
You can't use an alphanumerical operator such as "w", because the
"=127.0.*.3" portion is optional.
...
The more precise solution is to implement wildcards with ranges:
example.com=127.0.[0-128].3*1
example.
On 8/26/2010 4:04 PM, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
Is there a command line tool to test this stuff? Something
that would step through the smtpd_*_restrictions or user
defined restriction classes, and show the chain of execution
and each restriction that is hit.
Nope. Just "postconf" to show t
Daniel Prieto:
> So what is the alternative to vacation for Postfix?
On 8/26/2010 11:15 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Huh? Why alternative? The "normal" vacation works just fine.
> Just read the manpage, there are options to answer to every mail etc.
Daniel Prieto:
> I've used it for a long
Noel Jones:
> This looks like a useful concept. If we use "*" as an octet
> wildcard, we'll need to use something else as the weight modifier.
> dnsbl_site=127.0.*.3w1 seems reasonable.
On 8/26/2010 2:28 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> You can't use an alphanumerical operator such as "w", because the
On 8/26/2010 11:26 AM, Udo Rader wrote:
On 08/26/2010 04:39 PM, Daniel Prieto wrote:
Hello,
Got some error in my logs below:
Aug 25 21:22:16 mail local[29944]: fatal: execvp /usr/bin/vacation: No
such file or directory
Aug 25 21:22:16 mail postfix/local[29867]: EF319BF1087:
to=, relay=loca
On 8/22/2010 11:42 AM, p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 16:01 CEST,
p...@alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
Reading RESTRICTION_CLASS_README confused me as to whether
adding a Restriction (or a defined smtpd_restriction_classes
group), to the right side of an access table, would
I've used it for a long time with Sendmail no problem, I didn't think
it would be an issue with Postfix. Read and tried the man page. Is
there any documentation from Postfix about the right way to configure
'vacation' on Postfix? Thanks.
On 8/26/2010 11:15 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Dan
On 8/26/2010 2:28 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Noel Jones:
This looks like a useful concept. If we use "*" as an octet
wildcard, we'll need to use something else as the weight
modifier. dnsbl_site=127.0.*.3w1 seems reasonable.
You can't use an alphanumerical operator such as "w", because the
"=1
Noel Jones:
> This looks like a useful concept. If we use "*" as an octet
> wildcard, we'll need to use something else as the weight
> modifier. dnsbl_site=127.0.*.3w1 seems reasonable.
You can't use an alphanumerical operator such as "w", because the
"=127.0.*.3" portion is optional.
Zhou, Yan:
> Hi There,
>
> What version of LDAP interface does Postfix 2.4.x support?
Try: the Postfix 2.4 LDAP_README file.
Wietse
Hi There,
What version of LDAP interface does Postfix 2.4.x support?
I know it does not support version 1, but cannot find anything about
whether it supports version 2 or 3?
Thanks,
Yan
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic
transmission is confidential
On 8/25/2010 4:54 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/25/2010 4:27 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Noel Jones:
Do we want to allow mixing DNSWLs and DNSBLs in one list?
I see them as being the same thing; just different weights.
Default to blacklist weight of 1; the user must specify a
negative weight for a w
On 8/26/2010 9:05 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 8/25/2010 10:11 PM:
In that case, don't use an access table with FILTER; use content_filter
or smtpd_proxy_filter to filter all mail.
(For wildcard access tables, use a regexp table. But for this
application, use content_filte
On 08/26/2010 04:39 PM, Daniel Prieto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Got some error in my logs below:
>
> Aug 25 21:22:16 mail local[29944]: fatal: execvp /usr/bin/vacation: No
> such file or directory
> Aug 25 21:22:16 mail postfix/local[29867]: EF319BF1087:
> to=, relay=local, delay=0.07, delays=0.05/0/0
* Daniel Prieto :
> So what is the alternative to vacation for Postfix?
Huh? Why alternative? The "normal" vacation works just fine.
Just read the manpage, there are options to answer to every mail etc.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedi
So what is the alternative to vacation for Postfix?
Thanks,
Daniel
On 8/26/2010 10:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel Prieto:
Is there a substitute 'vacation' feature from Sendmail for Postfix for
all my users? Is Postfix.admin the best bet?
I compiled vacation on my linux box and enable my .
Daniel Prieto:
> Is there a substitute 'vacation' feature from Sendmail for Postfix for
> all my users? Is Postfix.admin the best bet?
> I compiled vacation on my linux box and enable my .forward file with
> \user1, "|/usr/bin/vacation user1" but the sender doesn't get a
> 'vacation' message bac
Hello,
Got some error in my logs below:
Aug 25 21:22:16 mail local[29944]: fatal: execvp /usr/bin/vacation: No
such file or directory
Aug 25 21:22:16 mail postfix/local[29867]: EF319BF1087:
to=, relay=local, delay=0.07, delays=0.05/0/0/0.02,
dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (temporary failure. Com
Noel Jones put forth on 8/25/2010 10:11 PM:
> In that case, don't use an access table with FILTER; use content_filter
> or smtpd_proxy_filter to filter all mail.
>
> (For wildcard access tables, use a regexp table. But for this
> application, use content_filter.)
Let me try to make this really
Stan Hoeppner:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 8/25/2010 4:27 PM:
> > Noel Jones:
> >> As I see it, there are two complementary paths we can take
> >> with DNS whitelists, each with a slightly different purpose.
> >> While these are both useful, neither depends on the other, so
> >> postfix can impl
On 8/26/2010 6:31 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
If you've specified smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=yes, that check
is also after smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
Since smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=yes is the default, it happens
after the recipient_restrictions *without* my having to specify it, ri
Wietse Venema put forth on 8/25/2010 4:27 PM:
> Noel Jones:
>> As I see it, there are two complementary paths we can take
>> with DNS whitelists, each with a slightly different purpose.
>> While these are both useful, neither depends on the other, so
>> postfix can implement either or both.
>
>
Thanks for taking the time to try to assist my limited brain in
understanding this Noel. It is frustrating, because I thought I at least
had a decent handle on how these checks worked...
Noel Jones wrote:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions is not the last section; the message
> still must pass smtpd_d
Matthias Leisi:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > ?dnswl1.example.com=127.0.0.2*weight1, dnswl2.example.com=127.0.0.1*weight2
> > ?dnsbl3.example.com=127.0.0.3*weight3, dnsbl4.example.com=127.0.0.1*weight4
>
> What about wildcarding? dnswl.org currently returns 127.0
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:47:46 -0700
Security Admin (NetSec) articulated:
> > smtp_tls_CAfile = /etc/postfix/exchange.pem
>
> >>You can list more CAs in this file if you wish.
>
> Is there an existing file or a weblink that would list the current
> accepted global root CAs? Since the only one in
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> dnswl1.example.com=127.0.0.2*weight1, dnswl2.example.com=127.0.0.1*weight2
> dnsbl3.example.com=127.0.0.3*weight3, dnsbl4.example.com=127.0.0.1*weight4
What about wildcarding? dnswl.org currently returns 127.0.n.[0-3],
with "n" being num
* Wietse Venema :
> Noel Jones:
> > As I see it, there are two complementary paths we can take
> > with DNS whitelists, each with a slightly different purpose.
> > While these are both useful, neither depends on the other, so
> > postfix can implement either or both.
>
> I'll read the entire pro
33 matches
Mail list logo
