On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 07:19:08AM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 3/11/2011 8:55 PM:
> > Stan Hoeppner:
> >> I've often wondered why MX lookups aren't disabled
> >> automatically when setting relayhost=.
> >
> > Because there is no way to turn it on! A feature that can't
Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Victor Duchovni
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:48:45PM -0400, Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu wrote:
> >
> >> Tried that and got the following:
> >>
> >> fatal: bad string length 0 < 1: inet_interfaces =
> >
> > Yes, you can set "inet_interf
Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> warning: host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:25 greeted me with my own hostname
> warning: host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:25 replied to HELO/EHLO with my own
> hostname
You also need to configure a myhostname that is different than
the other MTA.
Wietse
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> > Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
>> >> I eventually fixed it by adding a transport rule "*
>> >> relay:127.0.0.1:10025" and having the other MTA listen on 10025, but
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:48:45PM -0400, Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu wrote:
>
>> Tried that and got the following:
>>
>> fatal: bad string length 0 < 1: inet_interfaces =
>
> Yes, you can set "inet_interfaces = loopback-only" or similar.
But I
Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> >> I eventually fixed it by adding a transport rule "*
> >> relay:127.0.0.1:10025" and having the other MTA listen on 10025, but
> >> wondering if this is the best way. I would rather touch
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:48:45PM -0400, Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu wrote:
> Tried that and got the following:
>
> fatal: bad string length 0 < 1: inet_interfaces =
Yes, you can set "inet_interfaces = loopback-only" or similar.
--
Viktor.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
>> I eventually fixed it by adding a transport rule "*
>> relay:127.0.0.1:10025" and having the other MTA listen on 10025, but
>> wondering if this is the best way. I would rather touch the other MTA
>> as little as pos
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:28:51 -0400
the honourable Victor Duchovni
wrote using one of his/her keyboards:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 08:01:09PM +0200, Petre Bandac wrote:
>
> > intern.c.ro relay:[10.0.0.77]
> > ##
> >
> > and I still get the relay denied error
> >
> >
> > Mar 14 19:31:11 mx post
On 3/14/2011 1:37 PM, Petre Bandac wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_sasl_authenticated,
permit_mynetworks, reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
reject_unauth_destination, reject_unauth_pipelining,
reject_invalid_hostname, re
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:12:30 -0500
the honourable Noel Jones wrote using one of
his/her keyboards:
> On 3/14/2011 1:01 PM, Petre Bandac wrote:
> > hallo
> >
> >
> > sorry for continuing the post, but my problem is somehow related to
> > the solution you gave (which also was my first setup, but di
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 08:01:09PM +0200, Petre Bandac wrote:
> intern.c.ro relay:[10.0.0.77]
> ##
>
> and I still get the relay denied error
>
>
> Mar 14 19:31:11 mx postfix/smtpd[43289]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail.kgb.ro[193.239.159.34]: 554 5.7.1 :
> Relay access denied; from=
> to=
On 3/14/2011 1:01 PM, Petre Bandac wrote:
hallo
sorry for continuing the post, but my problem is somehow related to the
solution you gave (which also was my first setup, but didn't work)
one single domain - x.ro - virtual users stored in mysql database
subdomain intern.x.ro goes to a LAN stat
hallo
sorry for continuing the post, but my problem is somehow related to the
solution you gave (which also was my first setup, but didn't work)
one single domain - x.ro - virtual users stored in mysql database
subdomain intern.x.ro goes to a LAN station (Lotus server) - 10.0.0.77
both x.ro &
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/14/2011 11:17 AM:
> On 2011-03-14 11:04:02 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/14/2011 9:34 AM:
>>
>>> But there's also mailbox_size_limit to track. Wouldn't it be better
>>> to set both mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit to much
>>
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 06:08:55PM +0200, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> On 12/3/2011 5:55 , Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> There is no code to store multiple original recipients with each
>> recipient in queue files, to read multiple original recipients from
>> queue files, to log multiple original recip
On 2011-03-14 12:11 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-03-14 11:30:14 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2011-03-14 11:12 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
Imo, zero/unlimited is *never* a good idea...
>>> Why (for mailbox_size_limit and virt
On 2011-03-14 11:04:02 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/14/2011 9:34 AM:
>
> > But there's also mailbox_size_limit to track. Wouldn't it be better
> > to set both mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit to much
> > larger values (or zero) and modify message_size_li
On 2011-03-14 11:30:14 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-03-14 11:12 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> >> Imo, zero/unlimited is *never* a good idea...
>
> > Why (for mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit)?
>
> Because... *unlimited*
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/14/2011 9:34 AM:
> But there's also mailbox_size_limit to track. Wouldn't it be better
> to set both mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit to much
> larger values (or zero) and modify message_size_limit only, so that
> one can focus to one parameter only?
I a
Hi!
I'd like to implement SRS (or another solution that rewrites the
envelope sender on forwarding) using a milter plugin or an SMTP based
content filter.
What are your experiences? Does anyone already use such a solution?
Which plugins are you using?
Thanks in advance,
--leo
--
e-mail ::: Le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/12/2011 12:17 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, mouss wrote:
>
>> - write your own policy server or milter
>
> Hi,
>
> There is a GeoIP policy server out there if you search around, it is
> called: geoip-policyd-0.01.tar.gz
>
On 2011-03-14 11:12 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> Imo, zero/unlimited is *never* a good idea...
> Why (for mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit)?
Because... *unlimited* *anything* is never a good idea... too much room
for error.
> I a
On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-03-14 10:34 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > But there's also mailbox_size_limit to track. Wouldn't it be better
> > to set both mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit to much
> > larger values (or zero) and modify message_size_limit
mouss wrote:
Le 13/03/2011 17:57, Alfonso Alejandro Reyes Jimenez a écrit :
Hi everyone.
I'm sending this email because I'm looking for a reference regarding smtp
attacks, this is because I'm working to create some smtp signatures for the
snort solution.
It's not directly with snort, I'm wil
On 2011-03-14 10:34 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> But there's also mailbox_size_limit to track. Wouldn't it be better
> to set both mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit to much
> larger values (or zero) and modify message_size_limit only, so that
> one can focus to one parameter only?
Imo,
On 2011-03-14 08:22:53 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/13/2011 5:44 PM:
> > On 2011-03-13 07:52:11 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> If you use virtual_mailbox_limit with strictly maildir mailboxes, you
> >> may as well set message_size_limit=0 and leave it alone, so you
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:19:21AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
>
>
> I would argue that its partially Microsoft's fault for allowing
> scripts in email or from web pages to have access to anything on your
> machine outside of the message viewer or the browser. ActiveX is not
> your friend in
On 3/13/2011 9:37 AM, Dennis Carr wrote:
So the problem is not with SMTP, it's with the spammers. Only thing we can do
is block them. I really, REALLY wish there was more we could do so we can
stop them - but the only thing we can do to stop them is to make it cost more
than it's worth, and
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:08:18 -0500
> Von: Glen Lee Edwards
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: The future of SMTP ?
> On 3/13/2011 8:27 AM, Dennis Carr wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Frank Bonnet wrote:
> >
> >> But to fight spam and all oth
Everything about SMTP and open networks has already been said in
this thread. There is no need to repeat it.
Everyone has the right to decide what email they want to receive,
but no-one has the right to make the spam problem worse by sending
email to innocent people whose address was mis-used to s
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/13/2011 5:44 PM:
> On 2011-03-13 07:52:11 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> If you use virtual_mailbox_limit with strictly maildir mailboxes, you
>> may as well set message_size_limit=0 and leave it alone, so you only
>> have one setting to keep track of.
>
> Is 0 accep
On 3/13/2011 8:27 AM, Dennis Carr wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Frank Bonnet wrote:
But to fight spam and all other malicious
problems it's getting more and more sophisticated
and complex to configure every day.
It is not a criticism it is a fact that jump
to every sysadmin's face.
Does anyone
Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> I eventually fixed it by adding a transport rule "*
> relay:127.0.0.1:10025" and having the other MTA listen on 10025, but
> wondering if this is the best way. I would rather touch the other MTA
> as little as possible and current setup requires me to do some
> configuratio
I would argue that its partially Microsoft's fault for allowing
scripts in email or from web pages to have access to anything on your
machine outside of the message viewer or the browser. ActiveX is not
your friend in these cases.
--Curtis
Dennis Carr
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Frank Bonne
I would like to run postfix on port 587, accept mail and than pass it
onto another MTA that is running on port 25.
Initially I thought I could achieve this by turning of smtp and
turning on submission on master.conf and than add a default_transport
to 127.0.0.1, but this resulted in "mail loops ba
36 matches
Mail list logo
