Troy Piggins wrote:
> Wondering how you're solving this for emails sent with Date: headers
> way in the past or future. What do you think is a reasonably
> acceptable in terms of dates. 3 days each side of the "correct"
> date? 3 months? Years?
>
> How do you keep the header_checks updated as
Wondering how you're solving this for emails sent with Date: headers
way in the past or future. What do you think is a reasonably
acceptable in terms of dates. 3 days each side of the "correct"
date? 3 months? Years?
How do you keep the header_checks updated as time goes by? I was
thinking a
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:48:05AM +0200, mouss wrote:
> Bounces go the envelope sender of the message. your best option is to
> get the web developpers to set the right envelope sender.
Amen. A lot of otherwise competent and knowledgeable people
simply don't even begin to think about error checki
On 4/27/2011 9:16 PM, Michael B Allen wrote:
Hi,
When I send email from home through my Postfix server my home dynamic
IP is included in the Received header:
Received: from nano.foo.net
(pool-98-190-153-84.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net [98.190.153.84])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-
On 04/27/2011 10:27 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> There is a setting on some Barracuda appliances called "deep header
> inspection" or "deep header parsing" that does this. Nobody who
> understood it would ever turn it on. Nevertheless, it sounds good,
> right? If you put the box there, somebody
On 04/27/2011 10:16 PM, Michael B Allen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I send email from home through my Postfix server my home dynamic
> IP is included in the Received header:
>
> Received: from nano.foo.net
> (pool-98-190-153-84.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net [98.190.153.84])
> (using TLSv1 with cipher D
Hi,
When I send email from home through my Postfix server my home dynamic
IP is included in the Received header:
Received: from nano.foo.net
(pool-98-190-153-84.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net [98.190.153.84])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate re
On 4/27/2011 3:11 PM, Jay G. Scott wrote:
greetings,
first, thanks to everyone who has tried to help me.
i still don't have it working. let me re-set the problem in case that helps.
You need to simplify your problem description. After more than
a couple sentences it just makes a buzzing no
Timo Sirainen:
> On 27.4.2011, at 18.04, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> >> I think the POSIX API works in all OSes commonly used nowadays. FreeBSD
> >> 5.1, NetBSD 3.0, OpenBSD 4.4, Solaris 5(?), OS X (some version), Linux
> >> for last 5+ years.
> >> I wrote some wrappers for these and people haven't c
On 27.4.2011, at 18.04, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> I think the POSIX API works in all OSes commonly used nowadays. FreeBSD
>> 5.1, NetBSD 3.0, OpenBSD 4.4, Solaris 5(?), OS X (some version), Linux
>> for last 5+ years.
>> I wrote some wrappers for these and people haven't complained about them
>> muc
Wietse Venema:
> Homer Wilson Smith:
> > Is there a way to set a mail server to only open one connection
> > to another, and send all mail over that one connection keeping it alive?
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> smtp_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
> smtp_connection_cache_on_demand =
Homer Wilson Smith:
> Is there a way to set a mail server to only open one connection
> to another, and send all mail over that one connection keeping it alive?
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
smtp_destination_concurrency_limit = 1
smtp_connection_cache_on_demand = yes
References:
http://www.p
JR Swartz:
> I established MX records for each of the virtual domains and email is
> flowing fine. However, when web site owners send newsletters out from their
> web site content management systems, the undeliverable emails get sent to
> root on the webserver instead of being sent to the owners v
Running FC5 Postfix 2.1.5, Qpopper 4.x
QUESTION:
Is there a way to set a mail server to only open one connection
to another, and send all mail over that one connection keeping it alive?
SETUP
We have two incoming mail servers which are the MX records for our
many domains
Le 28/04/2011 00:03, JR Swartz a écrit :
>
>
> For several years my small business used one large apache web server
> (virtual hosts)/email server combined with Postfix. Recently I split the
> two into their own separate servers. I have a webserver.domain.com and
> mailserver.domain.com.
>
>
Le 28/04/2011 00:26, Jerry a écrit :
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:11:17 +0200
> Tom Hendrikx articulated:
>
>> On 27/04/11 18:52, Jerry wrote:
>>> I am in the process of setting up a mail system with plus
>>> addressing. Presently it is using Dovecot with sieve to filter the
>>> mail. What I want to
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:11:17 +0200
Tom Hendrikx articulated:
> On 27/04/11 18:52, Jerry wrote:
> > I am in the process of setting up a mail system with plus
> > addressing. Presently it is using Dovecot with sieve to filter the
> > mail. What I want to do is limit the number of "plus" addresses
>
For several years my small business used one large apache web server
(virtual hosts)/email server combined with Postfix. Recently I split the
two into their own separate servers. I have a webserver.domain.com and
mailserver.domain.com.
I established MX records for each of the virtual domai
* Victor Duchovni wrote :
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 06:42:55PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>
> > 27.04.2011 15:44, Noel Jones wrote:
> > []
> > > regexp and pcre compatible expression:
> > >
> > > /^Subject: +[^[:space:]]{60}/ REJECT no spaces
> > >
> > > matches Subject: followed by one or m
* Noel Jones wrote :
> On 4/27/2011 7:23 AM, Troy Piggins wrote:
> >* Noel Jones wrote :
> >>On 4/27/2011 6:17 AM, Troy Piggins wrote:
> >>regexp and pcre compatible expression:
> >>
> >>/^Subject: +[^[:space:]]{60}/ REJECT no spaces
> >
> >Thanks mate. That works beautifully. One minor improve
On 27/04/11 18:52, Jerry wrote:
> I am in the process of setting up a mail system with plus addressing.
> Presently it is using Dovecot with sieve to filter the mail. What I
> want to do is limit the number of "plus" addresses that are accepted.
>
> Example:
>
> Employees: Tom, Joe, Jane
>
> An
greetings,
first, thanks to everyone who has tried to help me.
i still don't have it working. let me re-set the problem in case that helps.
i have an external mail server (ns4, here) running postfix.
i have an internal mail server (ns6, here) running postfix.
neither ns4 nor ns6 does local del
I am in the process of setting up a mail system with plus addressing.
Presently it is using Dovecot with sieve to filter the mail. What I
want to do is limit the number of "plus" addresses that are accepted.
Example:
Employees: Tom, Joe, Jane
An email to either sa...@example.com or sales+...@exa
thank you again!
Am 27.04.2011 17:47, schrieb Victor Duchovni:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:32:28PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> ok, if there is no easy option if will leave it in peace
>> because my settings below are "friendly" enough i mean
>>
>> initial_destination_concurrency
On 4/27/2011 10:53 AM, Joh Doe wrote:
Hi,
Basically I am facing the exact same problem as shown in the
discussion below:
http://old.nabble.com/Content-Filter---Advanced-td20119772.html
I don't know how the OP solved the problem eventually, but I
have even tried to set net.ipv4.tcp_window_scalin
On 4/27/2011 10:57 AM, Casartello, Thomas wrote:
Hello,
We are going to begin the process of changing from one domain
name to another in our organization. Postfix functions as our
MX server and then forwards on to our Microsoft Exchange
environment. We need to keep both domains active for a year
Hello,
We are going to begin the process of changing from one domain name to another
in our organization. Postfix functions as our MX server and then forwards on to
our Microsoft Exchange environment. We need to keep both domains active for a
year, but because of the way the spam filter works,
Hi,
Basically I am facing the exact same problem as shown in the discussion below:
http://old.nabble.com/Content-Filter---Advanced-td20119772.html
I don't know how the OP solved the problem eventually, but I have even tried to
set net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 0 (some googling suggested that th
Am 27.04.2011 17:32, schrieb Wietse Venema:
>> is there a way to configure postfix that he would quque outstanding
>> messages for such a destination for lets say 5 minutes instead
>> produce a tempfail for every message sent to the host?
>>
>> host said: 410 maximum mail limit exceeded, try a
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:32:28PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> ok, if there is no easy option if will leave it in peace
> because my settings below are "friendly" enough i mean
>
> initial_destination_concurrency = 5
> smtp_destination_concurrency_limit = 5
Reindl Harald:
> Hi
>
> is there a way to configure postfix that he would quque outstanding
> messages for such a destination for lets say 5 minutes instead
> produce a tempfail for every message sent to the host?
>
> host said: 410 maximum mail limit exceeded, try again later. bye (in
> re
Am 27.04.2011 17:22, schrieb Victor Duchovni:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:06:15PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> is there a way to configure postfix that he would quque outstanding
>> messages for such a destination for lets say 5 minutes instead
>> produce a tempfail for every messa
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:06:15PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Hi
>
> is there a way to configure postfix that he would quque outstanding
> messages for such a destination for lets say 5 minutes instead
> produce a tempfail for every message sent to the host?
>
> host said: 410 maximum ma
Hi
is there a way to configure postfix that he would quque outstanding
messages for such a destination for lets say 5 minutes instead
produce a tempfail for every message sent to the host?
host said: 410 maximum mail limit exceeded, try again later. bye (in reply
to DATA command)
we have r
Timo Sirainen:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 07:19 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > It is clear. getpwnam_r() returns 0 both on success and "user not
> > > found", you just need to check if the result is NULL or not. If
> > > it returns anything else than 0 it's a transient error. If the
> > > NSS code
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 06:42:55PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 27.04.2011 15:44, Noel Jones wrote:
> []
> > regexp and pcre compatible expression:
> >
> > /^Subject: +[^[:space:]]{60}/ REJECT no spaces
> >
> > matches Subject: followed by one or more spaces, followed by 60 or more
> > non-s
* Carlos Mennens :
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
> >> or would the error just be rejected based on header / body / footer
> >> (excluding any attachment(s))?
> >
> > I don't run their servers, you know?
>
> I do know that much but I wasn't sure if there was a stand
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:09:53 -0400
> Von: Carlos Mennens
> An: Postfix
> Betreff: Re: Understand Why Message Was Rejected
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
> > They simply don't like the content.
>
> Does that include the p
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
>> or would the error just be rejected based on header / body / footer
>> (excluding any attachment(s))?
>
> I don't run their servers, you know?
I do know that much but I wasn't sure if there was a standard for that
error regardless of wh
27.04.2011 15:44, Noel Jones wrote:
[]
> regexp and pcre compatible expression:
>
> /^Subject: +[^[:space:]]{60}/ REJECT no spaces
>
> matches Subject: followed by one or more spaces, followed by 60 or more
> non-space characters.
This will reject mime-encoded quoted-printable subjects.
/mjt
Thanks Ralf,
Suggestions below worked fine.
Thanks,
-motty
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:51 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: NOQUEUE: reject
* Carlos Mennens :
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
> > They simply don't like the content.
>
> Does that include the possibility of attachment(s)
Yes
> or would the error just be rejected based on header / body / footer
> (excluding any attachment(s))?
I don't run
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> They simply don't like the content.
Does that include the possibility of attachment(s) or would the error
just be rejected based on header / body / footer (excluding any
attachment(s))?
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 07:19 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > It is clear. getpwnam_r() returns 0 both on success and "user not
> > found", you just need to check if the result is NULL or not. If
> > it returns anything else than 0 it's a transient error. If the
> > NSS code internally messes this up
Many thanks Noel,
it worked fine...
and sorry for the last (stupid) question..
jannis
--- Noel Jones schrieb am Di, 19.4.2011:
> Von: Noel Jones
> Betreff: Re: Filtering incoming mails with sender-domain = recipient-domain?
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Datum: Dienstag, 19. April, 2011 11
* Carlos Mennens :
> Apr 25 11:20:58 mail postfix/qmgr[19517]: 582E57785FC:
> from=, size=3066, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> Apr 25 11:22:50 mail postfix/smtp[512]: 582E57785FC:
> to=, relay=smtp04.usma.army.mil[129.29.252.13]:25,
> delay=112, delays=0.05/0/4.2/108, dsn=5.7.1, status=bounced (host
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 07:19:42AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Just because a system has getpwnam_r(), that does not mean it works
> like your API; and on some systems, getpwnam() does report errors
> via errno (e.g. FreeBSD8), whereas the original UNIX getpwnam()
> never returned for transient
I'm having a user email saying that are attempting to mail someone on
a remote server and it came back undeliverable. My end user has had
successful email transmission to the remote server in the past but
when I look at the delivery failure message, I really don't understand
why the message was kic
On 4/27/2011 7:23 AM, Troy Piggins wrote:
* Noel Jones wrote :
On 4/27/2011 6:17 AM, Troy Piggins wrote:
Hi there. I'm noticing lately most of the spam that gets through my
postgrey/postfix/amavis/spamassassin/procmail rules contains subject
lines that are extremely long strings with no spaces
* Wietse Venema wrote :
> Troy Piggins:
> > Hi there. I'm noticing lately most of the spam that gets through my
> > postgrey/postfix/amavis/spamassassin/procmail rules contains subject
> > lines that are extremely long strings with no spaces in them. eg:
> >
> > Subject:
> > DownloadLaetstMMiic
* Noel Jones wrote :
> On 4/27/2011 6:17 AM, Troy Piggins wrote:
> >Hi there. I'm noticing lately most of the spam that gets through my
> >postgrey/postfix/amavis/spamassassin/procmail rules contains subject
> >lines that are extremely long strings with no spaces in them. eg:
> >
> >Subject:
> >
On 4/27/2011 6:17 AM, Troy Piggins wrote:
Hi there. I'm noticing lately most of the spam that gets through my
postgrey/postfix/amavis/spamassassin/procmail rules contains subject
lines that are extremely long strings with no spaces in them. eg:
Subject:
DownloadLaetstMMiicrosoftAndAppleSotfta
Troy Piggins:
> Hi there. I'm noticing lately most of the spam that gets through my
> postgrey/postfix/amavis/spamassassin/procmail rules contains subject
> lines that are extremely long strings with no spaces in them. eg:
>
> Subject:
> DownloadLaetstMMiicrosoftAndAppleSotftawreAndSaveThouasad
Timo Sirainen:
> On 27.4.2011, at 0.53, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> >> Just wondering: Is it really the nss-ldap code that is buggy or just
> >> the libc's getpwnam() call that is fundamentally broken? I recently
> >> changed Dovecot to use getpwnam_r() instead, since it allows proper
> >> error ch
Hi there. I'm noticing lately most of the spam that gets through my
postgrey/postfix/amavis/spamassassin/procmail rules contains subject
lines that are extremely long strings with no spaces in them. eg:
Subject:
DownloadLaetstMMiicrosoftAndAppleSotftawreAndSaveThouasadnds.ApprvoedLicecnseddS
T
Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:19:13PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > diff -cr -C4 src/local/bounce_workaround.c src/local/bounce_workaround.c
> > *** src/local/bounce_workaround.c Sat Feb 13 21:00:24 2010
> > --- src/local/bounce_workaround.c Tue Apr 26 16:44:22 2011
> > ***
56 matches
Mail list logo
