Re: No SASL Mechanisms For SMTP AUTH

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:08:58AM +, Pete wrote: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:56:06AM +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > > On 11/13/2010 12:34 AM, Pete wrote: > > >Hello all, > > > > > >I have finally attained the unenviable position of being able to > > >effortlessly see > > >the entire wood wit

Re: No SASL Mechanisms For SMTP AUTH

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:56:06AM +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 11/13/2010 12:34 AM, Pete wrote: > >Hello all, > > > >I have finally attained the unenviable position of being able to > >effortlessly see > >the entire wood without being able to clearly identify a single tree. IOW, > >I'm > >c

Re: No SASL Mechanisms For SMTP AUTH

On 11/13/2010 12:34 AM, Pete wrote: Hello all, I have finally attained the unenviable position of being able to effortlessly see the entire wood without being able to clearly identify a single tree. IOW, I'm completely stuck. OS = Centos 5.5 (2.6.18-194.26.1.el5) x86_64 Postfix = postfix-2.3.3

No SASL Mechanisms For SMTP AUTH

Hello all, I have finally attained the unenviable position of being able to effortlessly see the entire wood without being able to clearly identify a single tree. IOW, I'm completely stuck. OS = Centos 5.5 (2.6.18-194.26.1.el5) x86_64 Postfix = postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2 Dovecot = dovecot-1.0.7-7.e

Re: Upgrades Leave Questionable Warnings

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Jeroen Geilman wrote: Are you running pflogsumm with cumulative history ? Jeroen, Not deliberately. In the past when I've resolved warnings they did not appear the next day. Try to purge the history, or run it once for just "yesterday". I'll go look for how to do

Re: Upgrades Leave Questionable Warnings

On 11/12/2010 10:41 PM, Rich Shepard wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Wietse Venema wrote: Trick question: does running the command "postfix check" produce the same warnings? If not, perhaps the warnings are from a different point in the space-time continuum. Wietse, No, "postfix check" does no

Re: Upgrades Leave Questionable Warnings

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Wietse Venema wrote: Trick question: does running the command "postfix check" produce the same warnings? If not, perhaps the warnings are from a different point in the space-time continuum. Wietse, No, "postfix check" does not produce these warnings, but they have appea

Re: Upgrades Leave Questionable Warnings

Rich Shepard: >I upgraded both my distribution (to Slackware-13.1) and postfix (to 2.7.1) > and continue to see warnings that I fixed in the daily log summary. The > warnings are: > > Warnings > >postfix-script (total: 4) > 2 not owned by postfix: /var/lib/postfix/./ma

Re: spf, greylist rec?

Jay G. Scott put forth on 11/12/2010 9:55 AM: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:05:16AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> What anti-spam measures are you currently using? > > puremessage, which is a commercialized spamassassin. they supply > an RBL. > > and i'm not interested in spam per se. my users

Re: Is there a limit on incoming messages on a single connection?

On 11/12/10 10:27 AM, "Jeroen Geilman" wrote: > On 11/12/2010 07:06 PM, Rob Tanner wrote: >> Is there a limit on incoming messages on a single connection? Hi, >> >> Our admissions office sends out mass mailings to prospective students, >> anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 at a time. They are mail

Re: alternate sendmail binary for sieve redirect OT

Am 12.11.2010 19:08, schrieb mouss: > Le 12/11/2010 16:01, Robert Schetterer a écrit : >> Am 12.11.2010 15:24, schrieb Jeroen Geilman: >>> On 11/12/2010 03:19 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: Hi , this isnt really a dovecot/postfix question in dove lda, there is sendmail_path = someone t

Re: Is there a limit on incoming messages on a single connection?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0800, Rob Tanner wrote: > Our admissions office sends out mass mailings to prospective students, > anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 at a time. They are mail-merged and sent via > outlook to the postfix server, one recipient per message. I am skeptical that it is

Re: Combine Mail & Web Server [Off-Topic'ish]

Le 12/11/2010 14:52, Carlos Mennens a écrit : I was just curious is it common in enterprise environments for Linux administrators to combine their primary email server (Postfix) with their companies web server (Apache)? I'm just more curious than anything and I know this is a relative question wi

phasing in reject_unknown_client_hostname

I'm phasing in usage of reject_unknown_client_hostname. Since I'm in the U.S., I'm giving ripe, apnic, lacnic and afrinic /8's the harsh treatment of reject_unknown_helo_hostname,reject_unknown_client_hostname. But I can't get away with using reject_unknown_client_hostname on all of the US or C

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 06:58 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:15:03AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote: On 11/12/2010 6:47 AM, Mingliang Zu wrote: smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender Good, that setting does what you have asked. Testing that here gives: ... MAIL F

Re: Is there a limit on incoming messages on a single connection?

On 11/12/2010 07:06 PM, Rob Tanner wrote: Hi, Our admissions office sends out mass mailings to prospective students, anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 at a time. They are mail-merged and sent via outlook to the postfix server, one recipient per message. The user reports that outlook sends out 5

Re: Understanding setgid_group Parameter

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:15:36PM -0500, Carlos Mennens wrote: > I know this may seem simple and stupid to most of you but I was > looking through my configuration and was curious what the > parameter 'setgid_group = postdrop' in my main.cf actually > means. Yes I've read: > > setgid_group (post

Re: alternate sendmail binary for sieve redirect OT

Le 12/11/2010 16:01, Robert Schetterer a écrit : Am 12.11.2010 15:24, schrieb Jeroen Geilman: On 11/12/2010 03:19 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: Hi , this isnt really a dovecot/postfix question in dove lda, there is sendmail_path = someone tried other progs here like mini_sendmail ? http://www.a

Is there a limit on incoming messages on a single connection?

Hi, Our admissions office sends out mass mailings to prospective students, anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 at a time. They are mail-merged and sent via outlook to the postfix server, one recipient per message. The user reports that outlook sends out 500 messages and then stops. If he restarts out

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:15:03AM -0600, Noel Jones wrote: > On 11/12/2010 6:47 AM, Mingliang Zu wrote: >> smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender > > Good, that setting does what you have asked. Testing that here gives: > ... > MAIL FROM: > 250 2.1.0 Ok > RCPT TO: > 504 5.5.2 : Sender

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

Le 12/11/2010 12:40, Mingliang Zu a écrit : Hi, I'm using postfix 2.3. My intention is to reject "MAIL FROM" command (give a 501 syntax error) if the sender doesn't contains '@'. I have worked on it for two days but without any luck. The following lines are added to main.cf . I

Understanding setgid_group Parameter

I know this may seem simple and stupid to most of you but I was looking through my configuration and was curious what the parameter 'setgid_group = postdrop' in my main.cf actually means. Yes I've read: setgid_group (postdrop): The group ownership of set-gid Postfix commands of group-writable Post

Re: what is difference between mail_spool_directory and home_mailbox?

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 10:06:05 -0500, Zhou, Yan wrote: > What is the difference between: mail_spool_directory and home_mailbox? See local(8), especially DELIVERY METHOD CONTROLS and the first two paragraphs under MAILBOX DELIVERY. > Are they both for user's mailbox? Yes. Also see postconf(5) f

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 6:47 AM, Mingliang Zu wrote: Mingliang Zu should show us the output of "postconf -n" rather than snips from main.cf . -- Noel Jones Sorry. Here is my entire conf: [r...@rhel5 postfix]# postconf -n ... non_fqdn_reject_code = 501 The default reje

[no subject]

http://sites.google.com/site/jfgkewjgkjwgjwgwhq/phtv4a

what is difference between mail_spool_directory and home_mailbox?

Hi there, What is the difference between: mail_spool_directory and home_mailbox? Are they both for user's mailbox? Thanks, Yan NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,

Re: Rewriting the envelope_sender

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:07:21PM +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote: >>> Reading the regexp man page suggests that the following would work in >>> sender_canonical_maps: >>> >>> /\"From:(.*)\"@(.*)/REPLACE$...@${2} >>> >>> However, this does not seem to get matched in any way. >>> >>> Anyone ha

Re: alternate sendmail binary for sieve redirect OT

Am 12.11.2010 15:24, schrieb Jeroen Geilman: > On 11/12/2010 03:19 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: >> Hi , this isnt really a dovecot/postfix question >> in dove lda, there is sendmail_path = >> someone tried other progs here like mini_sendmail ? >> >> http://www.acme.com/software/mini_sendmail/ >> >>

Upgrades Leave Questionable Warnings

I upgraded both my distribution (to Slackware-13.1) and postfix (to 2.7.1) and continue to see warnings that I fixed in the daily log summary. The warnings are: Warnings postfix-script (total: 4) 2 not owned by postfix: /var/lib/postfix/./master.lock 1 /var/spoo

Re: alternate sendmail binary for sieve redirect OT

On 11/12/2010 03:19 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote: Hi , this isnt really a dovecot/postfix question in dove lda, there is sendmail_path = someone tried other progs here like mini_sendmail ? http://www.acme.com/software/mini_sendmail/ i.e for using a default from forwarder address when sending red

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 01:42 PM, Noel Jones wrote: On 11/12/2010 6:20 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: On 11/12/2010 01:17 PM, Mingliang Zu wrote: sigh. did you change the order of the restrictions ? Yes. reject_non_fqdn_sender is now the only restriction. And these configurations are at the last lines of mai

alternate sendmail binary for sieve redirect OT

Hi , this isnt really a dovecot/postfix question in dove lda, there is sendmail_path = someone tried other progs here like mini_sendmail ? http://www.acme.com/software/mini_sendmail/ i.e for using a default from forwarder address when sending redirects by sieveis a stupid idea? background, s

Re: Combine Mail & Web Server [Off-Topic'ish]

On 12/11/2010 13:52, Carlos Mennens wrote: I was just curious is it common in enterprise environments for Linux administrators to combine their primary email server (Postfix) with their companies web server (Apache)? I'm just more curious than anything and I know this is a relative question with

Re: Combine Mail & Web Server [Off-Topic'ish]

* Carlos Mennens : > I was just curious is it common in enterprise environments for Linux > administrators to combine their primary email server (Postfix) with > their companies web server (Apache)? No. They're different machines (here) > I'm just more curious than anything and I know this is a

Combine Mail & Web Server [Off-Topic'ish]

I was just curious is it common in enterprise environments for Linux administrators to combine their primary email server (Postfix) with their companies web server (Apache)? I'm just more curious than anything and I know this is a relative question with random possible answers but I was just wonder

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

Zitat von Jeroen Geilman : On 11/12/2010 01:00 PM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote: Zitat von Mingliang Zu : Hi, I'm using postfix 2.3. My intention is to reject "MAIL FROM" command (give a 501 syntax error) if the sender doesn't contains '@'. I have worked on it for two days but without any lu

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

> > > Mingliang Zu should show us the output of "postconf -n" rather than snips > from main.cf. > > > -- Noel Jones > Sorry. Here is my entire conf: [r...@rhel5 postfix]# postconf -n alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases append_at_myorigin = no append_dot_mydomain = no

Re: Altermime Pro

* Wire James : > The entries that altermime added in the main.cf are; > # > content_filter=altermimepro > receive_override_options=no_address_mappings > # > Selected entries in the master.cf are as follows; These are used, unless explicitly overridden > smtp inet n - n

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 6:20 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: On 11/12/2010 01:17 PM, Mingliang Zu wrote: sigh. did you change the order of the restrictions ? Yes. reject_non_fqdn_sender is now the only restriction. And these configurations are at the last lines of main.conf. Is this OK? [r...@rhel5 postfix]#

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

> > >> No, this is not okay. You do not show what OTHER restrictions are in > effect. > > For this to work, that restriction must be matched BEFORE you allow > mynetworks. anywhere. > > > -- > J. > I'll have a check Thanks, Mingliang

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 01:17 PM, Mingliang Zu wrote: sigh. did you change the order of the restrictions ? Yes. reject_non_fqdn_sender is now the only restriction. And these configurations are at the last lines of main.conf. Is this OK? [r...@rhel5 postfix]# tail main.cf # readme_directory: The loc

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

> > sigh. did you change the order of the restrictions ? Yes. reject_non_fqdn_sender is now the only restriction. And these configurations are at the last lines of main.conf. Is this OK? [r...@rhel5 postfix]# tail main.cf # readme_directory: The location of the Postfix README files. # readme_dire

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 01:07 PM, Mingliang Zu wrote: Thanks for the quick reply Jeroen, But it looks reject_non_fqdn_sender doesn't help: [r...@rhel5 postfix]# grep fqdn main.cf smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender sigh. did you change the order of the restrictions ? no

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

Thanks for the quick reply Jeroen, But it looks reject_non_fqdn_sender doesn't help: [r...@rhel5 postfix]# grep fqdn main.cf smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender non_fqdn_reject_code = 501 [r...@rhel5 postfix]# postfix reload postfix/postfix-script: refreshing the Postfix mail system

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 01:00 PM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote: Zitat von Mingliang Zu : Hi, I'm using postfix 2.3. My intention is to reject "MAIL FROM" command (give a 501 syntax error) if the sender doesn't contains '@'. I have worked on it for two days but without any luck. The following lines are

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

Zitat von Mingliang Zu : Hi, I'm using postfix 2.3. My intention is to reject "MAIL FROM" command (give a 501 syntax error) if the sender doesn't contains '@'. I have worked on it for two days but without any luck. The following lines are added to main.cf. I was expecting "strict_rfc821_envelo

Re: Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

On 11/12/2010 12:40 PM, Mingliang Zu wrote: Hi, I'm using postfix 2.3. My intention is to reject "MAIL FROM" command (give a 501 syntax error) if the sender doesn't contains '@'. Add reject_non_fqdn_sender to your restriction list. "Reject a sender" is not the same as a syntax error; however

Re: smtpd_tls_security_level encrypt or may ?

Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 11/12/2010 10:36 AM, Per Jessen wrote: >> Jeroen Geilman wrote: >> >> >>> On 11/12/2010 09:05 AM, Per Jessen wrote: >>> I'm trying to setup an SMTP service on port 587, TLS required, authentication in plaintext allowed. What I can't understa

Reject "MAIL FROM" command if the sender address doesn't contain @

Hi, I'm using postfix 2.3. My intention is to reject "MAIL FROM" command (give a 501 syntax error) if the sender doesn't contains '@'. I have worked on it for two days but without any luck. The following lines are added to main.cf. I was expecting "strict_rfc821_envelope" to do the trick, but unf

Re: Altermime Pro

* Wire James : > Hi all > > I have just installed a trial version for Altermime pro (to put > disclaimers on outbound mails) on a SuSe Linux Mail server running > Postfix and Kaspersky Anti-virus and Antispam. While the altermime now > seems to work well, it has proceeded to make mails bypass the

Re: Rewriting the envelope_sender

On 11/12/2010 11:16 AM, Per Jessen wrote: Steven King wrote: Hey everyone, Does anyone have any good documentation on how to rewrite the envelope_sender based on an regexp map? I need to do the following. I have an application that is broken, and sets the "mail from" envelope-sender value

Re: smtpd_tls_security_level encrypt or may ?

On 11/12/2010 10:36 AM, Per Jessen wrote: Jeroen Geilman wrote: On 11/12/2010 09:05 AM, Per Jessen wrote: I'm trying to setup an SMTP service on port 587, TLS required, authentication in plaintext allowed. What I can't understand is the following: with smtpd_tls_security_level=encr

Re: warn_if_reject ignored

12.11.2010 12:33, Lists wrote: [] >> smtpd_helo_restrictions = >> warn_if_reject reject_invalid_hostname >> check_helo_access regexp:/etc/postfix/helo.regexp > > Thanks Ralph, that makes sense. I copied the original line from this > list many years ago - just noticed in postconf (5) that

Re: Rewriting the envelope_sender

Steven King wrote: > Hey everyone, > > Does anyone have any good documentation on how to rewrite the > envelope_sender based on an regexp map? > > I need to do the following. I have an application that is broken, and > sets the "mail from" envelope-sender value to "From:user"@domain.tld. > > Ob

Re: smtpd_tls_security_level encrypt or may ?

Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 11/12/2010 09:05 AM, Per Jessen wrote: >> I'm trying to setup an SMTP service on port 587, TLS required, >> authentication in plaintext allowed. >> >> What I can't understand is the following: >> >> with smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt, the SMTP server does not offer >>

Re: warn_if_reject ignored

On 12/11/10 08:58, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: smtpd_helo_restrictions = warn_if_reject reject_invalid_hostname regexp:/etc/postfix/helo.regexp actually means: smtpd_helo_restrictions = warn_if_reject reject_invalid_hostname regexp:/etc/postfix/helo.regexp which actually means smtpd_hel

Altermime Pro

Hi all I have just installed a trial version for Altermime pro (to put disclaimers on outbound mails) on a SuSe Linux Mail server running Postfix and Kaspersky Anti-virus and Antispam. While the altermime now seems to work well, it has proceeded to make mails bypass the Kaspersky scanners and all

Re: smtpd_tls_security_level encrypt or may ?

On 11/12/2010 09:05 AM, Per Jessen wrote: I'm trying to setup an SMTP service on port 587, TLS required, authentication in plaintext allowed. What I can't understand is the following: with smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt, the SMTP server does not offer any AUTH options. Correct. smtpd_tls_se

Re: warn_if_reject ignored

* Lists : > Hi guys, > > Running Postfix 2.3.3-2.1.el5_2 (RHEL5.5), I have the following in main.cf: > > smtpd_helo_restrictions = warn_if_reject reject_invalid_hostname > regexp:/etc/postfix/helo.regexp actually means: smtpd_helo_restrictions = warn_if_reject reject_invalid_hostname reg

warn_if_reject ignored

Hi guys, Running Postfix 2.3.3-2.1.el5_2 (RHEL5.5), I have the following in main.cf: smtpd_helo_restrictions = warn_if_reject reject_invalid_hostname regexp:/etc/postfix/helo.regexp and in helo.regexp: /^[0-9.]+$/ 550 Your software is not RFC 2821 compliant /^[0-9]+(\.[0-

Re: Does postfix support POP3 & anyone used Cerberus Helpdesk with Postfix

sunhux G put forth on 11/12/2010 1:18 AM: > This routing is done by Cerberus, I can configure Cerberus to grab > mails from any another location that support POP3 No, it's not. > Yes, the users can be informed to send their emails to another location This isn't a solution. I've done my best

smtpd_tls_security_level encrypt or may ?

I'm trying to setup an SMTP service on port 587, TLS required, authentication in plaintext allowed. What I can't understand is the following: with smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt, the SMTP server does not offer any AUTH options. With smtpd_tls_security_level=may, I get what I want: 250-AUTH P

Re: spf, greylist rec?

Jay G. Scott put forth on 11/11/2010 3:13 PM: > ANYWAY, if i'm only allowed to do SPF, does the answer > change? I suggest you look into other anti-spam measures then. Greylisting has some value, depending on the organization, far more than SPF checking. SPF has zero value WRT fighting spam (and