junkyardma...@frontier.com put forth on 9/26/2010 5:30 PM:
> Which makes their domain an easy target for block lists.
>
> http://www.spamhaus.org/query/dbl?domain=takeprettypictures.net
I can't seem to locate the "reason" page. I see nothing that says this
domain was listed due to, ahem, creativ
Larry Stone:
> On 9/26/10 6:59 PM, Stefan Monnier at monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
>
> >> If the mail cannot be returned to the return address, it is for all
> >> practical purposes discarded.
> >
> > That describes the behavior I see, but in the case where the mail
> > originates locally, thi
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:49:40AM +0200, Michal Bruncko wrote:
> Hello
>
> Thank you for pointing me. It was just my quick idea but as you
> wrote, perhaps many spammers have valid spf records and thus, my
> spam checking will be less spam resistant.
I have no problem not GREYLISTING things that
On 9/26/10 6:59 PM, Stefan Monnier at monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
>> If the mail cannot be returned to the return address, it is for all
>> practical purposes discarded.
>
> That describes the behavior I see, but in the case where the mail
> originates locally, this behavior is clearly subop
Postfix is a Mail TRANSFER Agent; it is not a Mail STORAGE Agent.
Think of
it like a bricks and mortar post office and mail. If mail is
undeliverable,
it is returned to the return address. Once returned, the post office
is done
with it; the post office does not archive a copy.
If the mail
On 9/26/2010 6:59 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I understand it can't send it anywhere (at least in my case, if the
relayhost rejects the message, there's nowhere to send the message
and/or the bounce), but can't it save the email in some local file,
at least?
Especially when the email originated loc
>> I understand it can't send it anywhere (at least in my case, if the
>> relayhost rejects the message, there's nowhere to send the message
>> and/or the bounce), but can't it save the email in some local file,
>> at least?
>> Especially when the email originated locally (i.e. was not received via
I got it working, thanks guys. (After a crapload of reading)
I really appreciate all of the help you guys have given.
On 9/26/10, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 6:28 PM, mouss wrote:
>> Le 27/09/2010 00:36, Noel Jones a écrit :
>>> On 9/26/2010 10:28 AM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
On 9/26/10, J
On 9/26/2010 6:28 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 27/09/2010 00:36, Noel Jones a écrit :
On 9/26/2010 10:28 AM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
On 9/26/10, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 09/26/2010 04:30 PM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
The address (sh...@example.com) is defined as a virtual
alias.
To what ?
If you DO want to
On 9/26/2010 6:23 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Postfix attempts to return bounced mail to the envelope sender address.
If postfix receives a permanent error when trying to deliver the bounce
message to the envelope sender, then the mail is discarded to prevent loops.
Evidence of what happened and wh
On 9/26/10 6:23 PM, Stefan Monnier at monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
>> Postfix attempts to return bounced mail to the envelope sender address.
>> If postfix receives a permanent error when trying to deliver the bounce
>> message to the envelope sender, then the mail is discarded to prevent loops
Le 27/09/2010 00:36, Noel Jones a écrit :
On 9/26/2010 10:28 AM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
On 9/26/10, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 09/26/2010 04:30 PM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
The address (sh...@example.com) is defined as a virtual alias.
To what ?
If you DO want to deliver to example.com, then it M
> Postfix attempts to return bounced mail to the envelope sender address.
> If postfix receives a permanent error when trying to deliver the bounce
> message to the envelope sender, then the mail is discarded to prevent loops.
> Evidence of what happened and why is always recorded in the mail log.
On 9/26/2010 5:52 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[ Fourth try to send this message. Hopefully this one will get through
and hopefully the other ones won't. ]
[ BTW, the policy of "silently discard email from non-subscribed
addresses"of postfix-users is really obnoxious. ]
I'm using Postfix to
[ Fourth try to send this message. Hopefully this one will get through
and hopefully the other ones won't. ]
[ BTW, the policy of "silently discard email from non-subscribed
addresses"of postfix-users is really obnoxious. ]
I'm using Postfix to send email (via a relayhost) from my laptop (nev
Hello
Thank you for pointing me. It was just my quick idea but as you wrote,
perhaps many spammers have valid spf records and thus, my spam checking
will be less spam resistant.
and Michael, thank you for your hint.
On 26. 9. 2010 12:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/
On 9/26/2010 3:33 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 26/09/2010 16:30, Shane Dittmar a écrit :
On 9/26/10, Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 12:58 CEST,
Shane Dittmar wrote:
[...]
I saw this message in the log: warning: do not list domain
example.com
in BOTH mydestination and virtual_mail
On 9/26/2010 10:28 AM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
On 9/26/10, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 09/26/2010 04:30 PM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
The address (sh...@example.com) is defined as a virtual alias.
To what ?
If you DO want to deliver to example.com, then it MUST BE a virtual
mailbox domain.
Not listin
Which makes their domain an easy target for block lists.
http://www.spamhaus.org/query/dbl?domain=takeprettypictures.net
--
From: "mouss"
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 1:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: SPF and greylisting conditioning
Le 26/09/2010
Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 23:46, mouss a écrit :
> Le 26/09/2010 23:28, fakessh a écrit :
> > Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 22:38, mouss a écrit :
> >>Le 26/09/2010 12:08, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> >>> Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/26/2010 4:24 AM:
> It is possible in some way to con
Le 26/09/2010 23:28, fakessh a écrit :
Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 22:38, mouss a écrit :
Le 26/09/2010 12:08, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/26/2010 4:24 AM:
It is possible in some way to configure postfix, that SPF Passed mails
will be automatically accepted with
Le dimanche 26 septembre 2010 22:38, mouss a écrit :
> Le 26/09/2010 12:08, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> > Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/26/2010 4:24 AM:
> >> It is possible in some way to configure postfix, that SPF Passed mails
> >> will be automatically accepted with postfix without greylisting?
Le 25/09/2010 20:09, Toni Mueller a écrit :
[snip]
thanks for the hints. I've tried again. Now I can see that:
email=# select * from transport_map where email ilike '%bugs%';
id | email | transport
+--+---
11 | r...@bugs.oeko.net | local:
10 | bugs.o
Le 26/09/2010 12:08, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/26/2010 4:24 AM:
It is possible in some way to configure postfix, that SPF Passed mails
will be automatically accepted with postfix without greylisting?
If I may be blunt: this is a really dumb idea. Many, maybe all,
Le 26/09/2010 16:30, Shane Dittmar a écrit :
On 9/26/10, Magnus Bäck wrote:
On Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 12:58 CEST,
Shane Dittmar wrote:
[...]
I saw this message in the log: warning: do not list domain example.com
in BOTH mydestination and virtual_mailbox_domains
So I removed t
On 09/26/10 05:24, Michal Bruncko wrote:
> Hello list
>
> I am using postfix (v 2.7.0) with sender policy framework
> (postfix-policyd-spf-perl-2.001) and greylisting (postgrey-1.32) with
> following configuration:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> ...
> check_policy_service unix:private
On 9/26/10, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 09/26/2010 04:30 PM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
>> The address (sh...@example.com) is defined as a virtual alias.
>
> To what ?
>
> If you DO want to deliver to example.com, then it MUST BE a virtual
> mailbox domain.
>
> Not listing it when you have no clue what t
On 09/26/2010 04:30 PM, Shane Dittmar wrote:
The address (sh...@example.com) is defined as a virtual alias.
To what ?
If you DO want to deliver to example.com, then it MUST BE a virtual
mailbox domain.
Not listing it when you have no clue what the effect is, is never good.
--
J.
On 9/26/10, Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 12:58 CEST,
> Shane Dittmar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I saw this message in the log: warning: do not list domain example.com
>> in BOTH mydestination and virtual_mailbox_domains
>>
>> So I removed the domain from mydestination. No
On Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 12:58 CEST,
Shane Dittmar wrote:
[...]
> I saw this message in the log: warning: do not list domain example.com
> in BOTH mydestination and virtual_mailbox_domains
>
> So I removed the domain from mydestination. Now, when I attempt to
> send mail (I'm doing
Okay, I got syslogd running (and I now feel thurroughly stupid)
Now here is the issue:
I had originally placed the domain name I'm attempting to send mail to
in the mydestination parameter as well as adding it as a virtual
domain. The net result was that it appears from this log that it
assumes I
Michal Bruncko put forth on 9/26/2010 4:24 AM:
> It is possible in some way to configure postfix, that SPF Passed mails
> will be automatically accepted with postfix without greylisting?
If I may be blunt: this is a really dumb idea. Many, maybe all,
snowshoe spammers have valid SPF records. T
Hello list
I am using postfix (v 2.7.0) with sender policy framework
(postfix-policyd-spf-perl-2.001) and greylisting (postgrey-1.32) with
following configuration:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
...
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
check_policy_service unix:/var/spool/postfix/postg
33 matches
Mail list logo