well I do not use iptables because I run FreeBSD
but I think it would be feasable with pf or ipfw
Thanks
Le 15/06/2011 11:31, mail...@securitylabs.it a écrit :
On 15/06/2011 11:19, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
I would like to stop incoming/outgoing email to our site
without stopping internal ema
Thanks a lot Viktor.
Le 15/06/2011 17:38, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:19:33AM +0200, Frank Bonnet wrote:
INTERNET
|
|
MX SERVER
|
|
INTERNAL MAILHUB
- Цитат от Victor Duchovni (victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com),
на 16.06.2011 в 05:27 -
Or this?
/etc/postfix/master.cf
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
submission inet n - n - - smtpd
-o sender_bcc_maps=maptype:mapname
As the OP observed, correctly, this won't work since bcc is don
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 07:44:53PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > We do not use it before/after filter. The setup is that BCC mapping
> > is only needed for sending outgoing mail (we send a copy to the
> > "Sent" folder) so we enable BCC mapping by default (in main.cf)
> > and disable it on defau
- Цитат от Wietse Venema (wie...@porcupine.org), на 16.06.2011
в 02:44 - Wietse:
Apparently you can't use receive_override_options=no_address_mappings
because you need virtual alias or canonical mapping on both sides
of the filter?
karave...@mail.bg:
We do not use it before/af
Wietse:
> Apparently you can't use receive_override_options=no_address_mappings
> because you need virtual alias or canonical mapping on both sides
> of the filter?
karave...@mail.bg:
> We do not use it before/after filter. The setup is that BCC mapping
> is only needed for sending outgoing mail (
- Цитат от Wietse Venema (wie...@porcupine.org), на 16.06.2011 в 01:18 -
karave...@mail.bg:
Hello,
For our setup here we needed to selectively disable BCC mappings
without disabling the other mappings. So attached is a patch that
adds this capability to receive_override_options . It does
karave...@mail.bg:
> Hello,
>
>For our setup here we needed to selectively disable BCC mappings
>without disabling the other mappings. So attached is a patch that
>adds this capability to receive_override_options . It does not
>change any other behavior.
I don't understand this.
Apparently you c
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:44:36AM +0300, karave...@mail.bg wrote:
> For our setup here we needed to selectively disable BCC mappings without
> disabling the other mappings. So attached is a patch that adds this
> capability to receive_override_options . It does not change any other
> behavior.
Hello,
For our setup here we needed to selectively disable BCC mappings without
disabling the other mappings. So attached is a patch that adds this capability
to receive_override_options . It does not change any other behavior.
The patch is against v2.8.3. I hope that it will be integrated in
Zhou, Yan:
> Jun 15 21:01:47 dir-dev-app01 postfix/bounce[28942]: fatal: bad string
> length 0 < 1: bounce_notice_recipient =
The bounce_notice_recipient value must not be empty. As documented,
this is the address where copies of bounce notices are sent.
As documented, the notify_classes paramete
I had postfix main.cf set like this.
bounce_notice_recipient =
But seeing following error. The default value is "postmaster", so this
only disables bounce sent to "postmaster", not to the original sender,
right?
What am I missing?
Jun 15 21:01:47 dir-dev-app01 postfix/bounce[28942]: fatal: b
On 06/15/2011 09:48 PM, Zhou, Yan wrote:
Jeroen,
Thanks, the way I see it is that the remote SMTP server rejects the
message, so my local SMTP server is generating this bounce message to
notify the sender.
So, if I am sending a message that has invalid recipient address or the
message exceeds l
Jeroen,
Thanks, the way I see it is that the remote SMTP server rejects the
message, so my local SMTP server is generating this bounce message to
notify the sender.
So, if I am sending a message that has invalid recipient address or the
message exceeds limit, there is no way not getting these ma
JKL:
> On 06/15/2011 06:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:43:40 AM J4K wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> Spamass-milter has stopped processing messages from Postfix. I have
> >> tested the milter socket and it works. To test that it worked I used :-
> >> http://ww
On 06/15/2011 10:11 AM, mail...@securitylabs.it wrote:
Hello, I've a postfix 2.5.1 with system users. I need to restrict one
user to be able to send mail to local users only.
My conf:
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
append_dot_mydomain = no
biff = no
bounce_qu
On 06/15/2011 08:13 PM, Zhou, Yan wrote:
Hi there,
Sorry for the trivial question, I am a little confused what is a bounce
message and how not to get these internal Postfix messages.
RFC 5321, Section 6.1, Reliable delivery and (error) replies:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-6.1
Hi there,
Sorry for the trivial question, I am a little confused what is a bounce
message and how not to get these internal Postfix messages.
From my server hub-dev-app01.dev.medplus.com, I send a message to
hub-int-app01.dev.medplus.com. (They both running Postfix 2.3.x).
Because my recipie
--
On 06/15/2011 06:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:43:40 AM J4K wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Spamass-milter has stopped processing messages from Postfix. I have
>> tested the milter socket and it works. To test that it worked I used :-
>> http://www.itg.uiuc.edu
thank you for the quick response and patch!
ron
On 06/15/2011 01:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Csillag Tamas:
quoting from here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204
"So what are the big changes?
NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Sure, we have the usual two thirds driver
changes, and a lot of random
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:43:40 AM J4K wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Spamass-milter has stopped processing messages from Postfix. I have
> tested the milter socket and it works. To test that it worked I used :-
> http://www.itg.uiuc.edu/itg_software/milter_watch/ and Spamass-milter
> rejected
Hi there,
Spamass-milter has stopped processing messages from Postfix. I have
tested the milter socket and it works. To test that it worked I used :-
http://www.itg.uiuc.edu/itg_software/milter_watch/ and Spamass-milter
rejected the spammy messages.
The spam threshold on the spam milter is
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:19:33AM +0200, Frank Bonnet wrote:
> INTERNET
>|
>|
>MX SERVER
>|
>|
>INTERNAL MAILHUB
>|
>|
> USERS'S MUAs
>
>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:38:44AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Command:
> # tcpdump -s 0 -w /file/name host server-ip-address and port 25
>
> After some time, "kill -INT" the tcpdump process.
>
> Look in the logfile for a session that breaks, and find that session
> in the tcpdump recordin
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:21:27PM +0200, Dyonisius Visser wrote:
> So I guess I am looking for a sort of 'conditional' transport: only mail
> for vis...@terena.org that does not have a X-Spam-Flag header should be
> going to smtp:remote.filter.box.
>
> Any idea how to achieve this?
The re-injec
Dyonisius Visser:
> Hi guys
>
> At the moment we use local spamfiltering on our MX smtp.terena.org.
>
> I would like to test out a new mail filtering product, which is a hosted
> solution. This system is configured to accept mail for our domains, and
> deliver it to smtp.terena.org.
> Eventually
Tomasz Iwanowski:
> Hi All,
>
> I manage a local intranet mail server which collects mails from our local
> users
> and sends them all via our public mail hub server.
>
> Everything was fine until few weeks ago. Some small part of our emails (about
> 10%) hangs
> in mail's server queue with err
On 6/15/2011 7:21 AM, Dyonisius Visser wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> At the moment we use local spamfiltering on our MX smtp.terena.org.
>
> I would like to test out a new mail filtering product, which is a hosted
> solution. This system is configured to accept mail for our domains, and
> deliver it to sm
Hi guys
At the moment we use local spamfiltering on our MX smtp.terena.org.
I would like to test out a new mail filtering product, which is a hosted
solution. This system is configured to accept mail for our domains, and
deliver it to smtp.terena.org.
Eventually if this filter is deemed OK then o
Hi All,
I manage a local intranet mail server which collects mails from our local users
and sends them all via our public mail hub server.
Everything was fine until few weeks ago. Some small part of our emails (about
10%) hangs
in mail's server queue with error: timeout exceeded (in reply to en
Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:05:24PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> > I was thinking a setting integrated with smtp_pix_workarounds would be more
> > automatic, with little maintenance once configured.
>
> Given that the banner detection is incomplete (some pixen are not
> obvious
On Wednesday June 15 2011 05:42:36 Noel Jones wrote:
> At this time I'm inclined to set this aside. The DKIM bug
> doesn't seem to be widespread; there is no compelling case to
> add a new workaround right now.
Indeed the situation has much improved in the past year or two.
Many sites have turne
On 15/06/2011 11:19, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
I would like to stop incoming/outgoing email to our site
without stopping internal emails exchange.
my configuration is quite classic
INTERNET
|
|
MX SERVER
|
Hello
I would like to stop incoming/outgoing email to our site
without stopping internal emails exchange.
my configuration is quite classic
INTERNET
|
|
MX SERVER
|
|
INTERNAL MAILHUB
Hello, I've a postfix 2.5.1 with system users. I need to restrict one
user to be able to send mail to local users only.
My conf:
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
append_dot_mydomain = no
biff = no
bounce_queue_lifetime = 1d
config_directory = /etc/postfix
conten
Am 15.06.2011 08:39, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
> * Benny Pedersen :
>
>> fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
>>
>> fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
>> and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
>
> Yeah, that's a great idea!
>
but what if there are o
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:39:11 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Benny Pedersen :
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
Yeah, that's a great idea!
it is ?, oh thanks :-)
37 matches
Mail list logo
