On 11/30/2012 5:24 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 01.12.2012 00:19, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
>> On 11/30/2012 4:48 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>> in the real world submission is useless if IMAP is down
>>> because the client will fail to store in "sent messages"
>>
>> In the real world most roa
On 11/30/2012 6:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> That said, given the ongoing clock issues that all the guest/hypervisor
>> combos have always experienced to some degree, and will forever
>> experience no matter how good the mitigation hacks, it is my opinion,
>> and Wietse's, and ma
Stan Hoeppner:
> That said, given the ongoing clock issues that all the guest/hypervisor
> combos have always experienced to some degree, and will forever
> experience no matter how good the mitigation hacks, it is my opinion,
> and Wietse's, and many others, that mail is not really a suitable
> ap
Am 01.12.2012 00:19, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> On 11/30/2012 4:48 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> in the real world submission is useless if IMAP is down
>> because the client will fail to store in "sent messages"
>
> In the real world most road warriors use POP, not IMAP, and those with
> consist
On 11/30/2012 4:48 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> in the real world submission is useless if IMAP is down
> because the client will fail to store in "sent messages"
In the real world most road warriors use POP, not IMAP, and those with
consistent connectivity that do make use of IMAP do it via web ma
Am 30.11.2012 22:57, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> Simply physically separate your inbound public SMTP traffic from your
> user submission relay traffic. I.e. setup a separate dedicated box that
> ONLY performs submission on TCP 587 with auth and outbound relay. I.e.
> disable the smtpd server on TC
wimpunk:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > wimpunk:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've been wondering why my .forward files didn't worked like I
> >> expected and finally I found out dotforward doesn't accept linked
> >> files. Is there any reason why dotforward doesn't read links
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> wimpunk:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been wondering why my .forward files didn't worked like I
>> expected and finally I found out dotforward doesn't accept linked
>> files. Is there any reason why dotforward doesn't read links? In
>> src/local/dotf
wimpunk:
> Hi,
>
> I've been wondering why my .forward files didn't worked like I
> expected and finally I found out dotforward doesn't accept linked
> files. Is there any reason why dotforward doesn't read links? In
> src/local/dotforward.c (line232 of the latest debian version) I wanted
> to c
On 11/30/2012 7:27 AM, Tomas Macek wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Strange, do you really expect Postfix to flip status immediately
>> when load drops under the limit, or do you expect it to behave in
>> a more rational manner and announce that "peace has come" when the
>> lo
Dan Lists:
> Nov 30 10:39:59 server postfix/local[50947]: warning: error looking up
> passwd info for user: Invalid argument
The getpwnam_r() SYSTEM LIBRARY ROUTINE reports an error,
with errno set to EINVAL (Invalid argument).
Find out why the SYSTEM LIBRARY ROUTINE reports this error.
> Becaus
Noel, once more you help me out. Thank you so very much. I did look at
that, but didn't fully understand it. Now I know I CAN do it, I'll work
with it and experiment.
Thank you so much,
Sam
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 13:35 -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 11/30/2012 1:27 PM, Sam Jones wrote:
> > Am I rig
On 11/30/2012 1:27 PM, Sam Jones wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that it's the mailing software/client (Be that
> Mailman/Major Domino/Interspire/OpenEMM etc) that is responsible for
> creating the VERP address, and that it's not something I can get POSTFIX
> to do on the fly (perhaps with a milter
Am I right in thinking that it's the mailing software/client (Be that
Mailman/Major Domino/Interspire/OpenEMM etc) that is responsible for
creating the VERP address, and that it's not something I can get POSTFIX
to do on the fly (perhaps with a milter or header rewrite) at SMTP time?
I've read - b
Solved!
With the help of a co-worker, I used the -l parameter of patch to get
it to ignore whitespace. Prior to that, I kept getting hunk failures.
The command I used is:
patch –Cl –p0 < patch_name.patch
first to "Check" for errors and then just
patch –l –p0 < patch_name.patch.
Thank you Wiets
I recently upgraded our mail servers from FreeBSD 7.3 running postfix
2.8.7 to FreeBSD 8.3 running postfix 2.9.3. We have account
information stored in mysql and are using libnns-mysql to access the
information through the normal password routines.
After the upgrade, when a user does not exist I
On 11/30/12 11:17 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 11/30/2012 10:45 AM, l...@airstreamcomm.net wrote:
On 11/30/12 10:22 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
l...@airstreamcomm.net:
I am setup a 2.6.6 server with virtual domains and the entries in an
alias_maps file (/etc/postfix/aliases) which look like this:
On 11/30/2012 11:09 AM, c cc wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I thought I would try it on the Postfix group see if I can get a
> solution to the problem.
>
> When I released the email from the quarantined list in Dspam, the
> email name would change to something else. In my case, it was supposed
> to be
> cha...
On 11/30/2012 10:45 AM, l...@airstreamcomm.net wrote:
> On 11/30/12 10:22 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> l...@airstreamcomm.net:
>>> I am setup a 2.6.6 server with virtual domains and the entries in an
>>> alias_maps file (/etc/postfix/aliases) which look like this:
>>>
>>> localuser :include:/e
Hi:
I thought I would try it on the Postfix group see if I can get a
solution to the problem.
When I released the email from the quarantined list in Dspam, the
email name would change to something else. In my case, it was supposed
to be
cha...@mydomain.com--and it changed to hq??g...@mydomain.com
Wow...thank you Wietse!
I *think* I know how to apply this, but can someone confirm this for me -
I think I can just copy and paste your code into a file, name it, and then:
patch –p0 < /path/to/patch/patch_name.patch
Right so far?
What file am I applying the patch to? The "makedefs" file, rig
On 11/30/12 10:22 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
l...@airstreamcomm.net:
I am setup a 2.6.6 server with virtual domains and the entries in an
alias_maps file (/etc/postfix/aliases) which look like this:
localuser :include:/etc/postfix/massmail/localuser
localuser2 :include:/etc/postfix/ma
l...@airstreamcomm.net:
> I am setup a 2.6.6 server with virtual domains and the entries in an
> alias_maps file (/etc/postfix/aliases) which look like this:
>
> localuser :include:/etc/postfix/massmail/localuser
> localuser2 :include:/etc/postfix/massmail/localuser2
As documented this
I am setup a 2.6.6 server with virtual domains and the entries in an
alias_maps file (/etc/postfix/aliases) which look like this:
localuser :include:/etc/postfix/massmail/localuser
localuser2 :include:/etc/postfix/massmail/localuser2
When trying to deliver to the users (echo "test" | ma
Tomas Macek:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Tomas Macek:
> >> There is still one thing, that I don't understand: when exactly the
> >> postfix says that he is not stressed and restarts the processes with
> >> stress=no?
> >> This is not done when less then default_process_limit
I have the following smtpd entry in master.cf
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd
-o content_filter=lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock
-o relay_recipient_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/relay_recipients
What settings would I need to add to requre authentication for
outbou
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tomas Macek:
There is still one thing, that I don't understand: when exactly the
postfix says that he is not stressed and restarts the processes with
stress=no?
This is not done when less then default_process_limit smtpd processes are
run, because I exp
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behav
Tomas Macek:
> There is still one thing, that I don't understand: when exactly the
> postfix says that he is not stressed and restarts the processes with
> stress=no?
> This is not done when less then default_process_limit smtpd processes are
> run, because I experienced on my system (default_pr
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 30.11.2012 12:50, schrieb Tomas Macek:
This is really interesting solution (!), hope I will be able also to
connect to the syslog's pipe and read the mesages. But I don't know how
right now, I still was not studiing this, but I believe, that th
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on
su
Am 30.11.2012 12:50, schrieb Tomas Macek:
> This is really interesting solution (!), hope I will be able also to
> connect to the syslog's pipe and read the mesages. But I don't know how
> right now, I still was not studiing this, but I believe, that this would
> have much bigger performance! Thank
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 30.11.2012 12:07, schrieb Tomas Macek:
Fail2ban looks good, I will try it. But I'm worrying about to many
filter rules in fail2ban chain, that could lead into slowing down the
whole machine. The force attacks are often really brute and the IP's o
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 11/29/2012 6:18 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> i created a public namespace in dovecot on root (/public) there are
>> two folders inside "public". /public/HR and /public/News
>>
>> i want, when only HR send email to hr.annou...@mydomain.c
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on
submission port 587.
Our mailserver is sometimes over
Am 30.11.2012 12:07, schrieb Tomas Macek:
> Fail2ban looks good, I will try it. But I'm worrying about to many
> filter rules in fail2ban chain, that could lead into slowing down the
> whole machine. The force attacks are often really brute and the IP's of
> the clients change often also. But this
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Robert Schetterer :
Am 30.11.2012 11:44, schrieb Tomas Macek:
I cannot apply firewall rules on 587, because our clients travel with
their notebooks and still want to send their emails through our mailserver.
use fail2ban etc for blocking dynamic
Am 30.11.2012 11:52, schrieb Tomas Macek:
> If the Postfix's behaviour on port 587 is the same as with 25, it seems
> to me to be better to let the MUAs to send their mail to 25. In the
> postscreen the mynetworks are automatically whitelisted and on 25 they
> have better chance to send their mails
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on submission
port 587.
Our mailserver is sometimes overloaded on port 25, so we wan
* Robert Schetterer :
> Am 30.11.2012 11:44, schrieb Tomas Macek:
> > I cannot apply firewall rules on 587, because our clients travel with
> > their notebooks and still want to send their emails through our mailserver.
>
> use fail2ban etc for blocking dynamic, brute force attacks to
> submission
Am 30.11.2012 11:44, schrieb Tomas Macek:
> I cannot apply firewall rules on 587, because our clients travel with
> their notebooks and still want to send their emails through our mailserver.
use fail2ban etc for blocking dynamic, brute force attacks to
submission, normally this never matched on l
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 30.11.2012 11:12, schrieb Tomas Macek:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on
submission port 587.
Our mailserver is sometimes overloaded on port
Am 30.11.2012 11:12, schrieb Tomas Macek:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
>
>>
>> Zitat von Tomas Macek :
>>
>>> I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on
>>> submission port 587.
>>> Our mailserver is sometimes overloaded on port 25, so we want to use
>>> po
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on
submission port 587.
Our mailserver is sometimes overloaded on port 25, so we want to
use postscreen. But I don't understand, ho
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on submission
port 587.
Our mailserver is sometimes overloaded on port 25, so we want to use
postscreen. But I don't understand, how Postfix works when it's str
Zitat von Tomas Macek :
I don't understand now, how Postfix behaves when listenting on
submission port 587.
Our mailserver is sometimes overloaded on port 25, so we want to use
postscreen. But I don't understand, how Postfix works when it's
stressed on port 587, when spammers connect to th
46 matches
Mail list logo
