On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 08:57:51PM -0500, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> > When Postfix support for DANE (RFC 6698) is introduced, there will
> > be a requirement to operate a local nameserver that is DNSSEC aware
> > on any machine that wants to take advantage of peer certificate details
> > published
On 02/26/2013 08:57 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 11.51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:58:54AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic
from my mail server to constantly query for names. Some of
On Feb 26, 2013, at 11.51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:58:54AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic
>> from my mail server to constantly query for names. Some of these
>> names are frequent requests, for e
Florin Andrei:
> On 02/26/2013 01:48 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Florin Andrei:
> >> Sending out messages through a Postfix server. Delivery is refused for
> >> whatever reason (e.g. recipient does not exist), and then a bounce is
> >> sent by Postfix to a local inbox on that server, as a failure
Am 27.02.2013 00:10, schrieb Florin Andrei:
> On 02/26/2013 01:48 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Florin Andrei:
>>> Sending out messages through a Postfix server. Delivery is refused for
>>> whatever reason (e.g. recipient does not exist), and then a bounce is
>>> sent by Postfix to a local inbox on
On 02/26/2013 01:48 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Florin Andrei:
Sending out messages through a Postfix server. Delivery is refused for
whatever reason (e.g. recipient does not exist), and then a bounce is
sent by Postfix to a local inbox on that server, as a failure notification.
No. It is sent to
Florin Andrei:
> Sending out messages through a Postfix server. Delivery is refused for
> whatever reason (e.g. recipient does not exist), and then a bounce is
> sent by Postfix to a local inbox on that server, as a failure notification.
No. It is sent to the SMTP envelope sender as required by
Am 26.02.2013 22:17, schrieb Florin Andrei:
> On 02/26/2013 01:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> NO, NO AND NO
>>
>> SMTP works with envelopes and not with headers and there
>> are a million reasons to do this - if i send a message
>> with a reply-to header i expect that i get answers from
>> HUM
On 02/26/2013 01:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
NO, NO AND NO
SMTP works with envelopes and not with headers and there
are a million reasons to do this - if i send a message
with a reply-to header i expect that i get answers from
HUMAN persons on this address and not bounces
if whatever server se
Am 26.02.2013 22:00, schrieb Florin Andrei:
> Sending out messages through a Postfix server. Delivery is refused for
> whatever reason (e.g. recipient does not
> exist), and then a bounce is sent by Postfix to a local inbox on that server,
> as a failure notification.
>
> I'd like to forward t
On 2/26/2013 2:42 PM, Rich Bishop wrote:
> I'm running postfix 2.3.3 on Linux. I'd like to send mail to an
> external content filter based on the recipient address, which would
> be injected back into postfix on port 10027.
This requires multiple postfix instances because the transport_maps
parame
Sending out messages through a Postfix server. Delivery is refused for
whatever reason (e.g. recipient does not exist), and then a bounce is
sent by Postfix to a local inbox on that server, as a failure notification.
I'd like to forward that bounce to whatever address is in the Reply-To
field
Rich Bishop:
> I'm running postfix 2.3.3 on Linux. I'd like to send mail to an external
> content filter based on the recipient address, which would be injected
> back into postfix on port 10027.
>
> My first attempt was check_recipient_access=regexp:/etc/postfix/esa ...
>
> with esa containing
I'm running postfix 2.3.3 on Linux. I'd like to send mail to an external
content filter based on the recipient address, which would be injected
back into postfix on port 10027.
My first attempt was check_recipient_access=regexp:/etc/postfix/esa ...
with esa containing:
# Send non-local mail t
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:16:20 +0200
Jamie articulated:
> On 2013/02/26 4:59 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> > in your /etc/hosts file if you were to change it to the actual
> > servername.domain.tld of your server, then the log should report
> > the actual server name vs. localhost.localdomain. I
On Feb 26, 2013, at 17:51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:58:54AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic
>> from my mail server to constantly query for names. Some of these
>> names are frequent requests, for e
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Radwa Hamed wrote:
> there is an error in mail log file when sending mail to some
> hotmail accounts
>
> ... relay=none, delay=0.65, delays=0.45/0.14/0/0.06, dsn=4.4.2,
> status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: lost connection
> with mx2.hotmail.c
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:43:45PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:50:34AM +0100, Piotr Rotter wrote:
> > Can I set postfix to reject empty sender address for authenticated users.
>
> Null-sender must be accepted. There are several occasions where a MUA
> may send them, f
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:58:54AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic
> from my mail server to constantly query for names. Some of these
> names are frequent requests, for example: zen.spamhaus.org. So I
> was thinking that I could
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 01:50:34AM +0100, Piotr Rotter wrote:
> Can I set postfix to reject empty sender address for authenticated users.
Null-sender must be accepted. There are several occasions where a MUA
may send them, for example DSN mandates its usage sometimes.
RFC 6409 specifies:
| Note t
On 2/26/2013 8:45 AM, Jamie wrote:
> I ran chkrootki with clean results.
>
> For kicks: I sent a test email to myself from a web mail client. It
> seems connect from localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1] is outputted
> under normal circumstances. Thus, it must be something to do with
> the way in whic
On 02/26/2013 10:10 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 26.02.2013 15:58, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic from my mail
server to constantly query for
names. Some of these names are frequent requests, for example:
zen.spamhaus.org. So I w
Am 26.02.2013 15:58, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
> I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic from my
> mail server to constantly query for
> names. Some of these names are frequent requests, for example:
> zen.spamhaus.org. So I was thinking that I could
> benefit from
On 2013/02/26 4:59 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
in your /etc/hosts file if you were to change it to the actual
servername.domain.tld of your server, then the log should report the
actual server name vs. localhost.localdomain. I would unblock the IP
address and see if the same thing happens an
I have recently updated my DNS server and am observing the traffic from
my mail server to constantly query for names. Some of these names are
frequent requests, for example: zen.spamhaus.org. So I was thinking
that I could benefit from running a namecaching setup on my mail server
platform.
Jamie:
> For kicks: I sent a test email to myself from a web mail client. It
> seems connect from localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1] is outputted under
> normal circumstances. Thus, it must be something to do with the way in
> which postfix passed mails along to the antivirus, antispam scaners. I
I ran chkrootki with clean results.
For kicks: I sent a test email to myself from a web mail client. It
seems connect from localhost.localdomain[127.0.0.1] is outputted under
normal circumstances. Thus, it must be something to do with the way in
which postfix passed mails along to the antivir
Noel Jones:
> > Earlier today I noticed a spammer using my Postfix server as a relay
> > to send out spam. This was puzzling because i had all requisite anti
> > relay host settings applied. Further, it was particularly alarming
> > that Postfix seemed to be receiving the spam messages from localho
On 2/26/2013 8:53 AM, Jamie wrote:
On 2013/02/26 3:32 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
On 2/26/2013 7:52 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Like I said, as soon as I blocked the troublesome IP's the problem
went
away. Thus, it cannot be a local script. Furthermore,
we are not even running Apache. We ar
Sure... the log entries are not altered in any way.
*** /etc/hostname ***
serve.stimulussoft.com
*** /etc/hosts ***
127.0.0.1localhost.localdomain localhost
71.6.200.51serve.stimulussoft.com serve.mailarchiva.com
*** postfix configuration ***
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias
On 2/26/2013 4:32 AM, Jamie wrote:
> Hi
>
> Earlier today I noticed a spammer using my Postfix server as a relay
> to send out spam. This was puzzling because i had all requisite anti
> relay host settings applied. Further, it was particularly alarming
> that Postfix seemed to be receiving the sp
On 2/26/2013 7:52 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Like I said, as soon as I blocked the troublesome IP's the problem went
away. Thus, it cannot be a local script. Furthermore,
we are not even running Apache. We are running Tomcat with custom developed
Java apps.
I also ran tcpdump on localhost to see
Radwa Hamed:
> there is an error in mail log file when sending mail to some hotmail
> accounts
> log file error :
> relay=none, delay=0.65, delays=0.45/0.14/0/0.06, dsn=4.4.2,
> status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: lost connection with
> mx2.hotmail.com[65.55.37.104] while sending R
> Like I said, as soon as I blocked the troublesome IP's the problem went
> away. Thus, it cannot be a local script. Furthermore,
> we are not even running Apache. We are running Tomcat with custom developed
> Java apps.
>
> I also ran tcpdump on localhost to see if there was traffic being received
Hi,
there is an error in mail log file when sending mail to some hotmail
accounts
log file error :
relay=none, delay=0.65, delays=0.45/0.14/0/0.06, dsn=4.4.2,
status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: lost connection with
mx2.hotmail.com[65.55.37.104] while sending RCPT TO)
I want t
Am 26.02.2013 13:04, schrieb Jamie:
>
> Robert
>
> Thanks for the ideas. I'll try out your recommendations.
>
> Like I said, as soon as I blocked the troublesome IP's the problem went
> away. Thus, it cannot be a local script. Furthermore,
> we are not even running Apache. We are running Tomcat
Robert
Thanks for the ideas. I'll try out your recommendations.
Like I said, as soon as I blocked the troublesome IP's the problem went away.
Thus, it cannot be a local script. Furthermore,
we are not even running Apache. We are running Tomcat with custom developed
Java apps.
I also ran tcpd
Am 26.02.2013 12:57, schrieb Jamie:
> As requested, here is our configuration. I added the helo restrictions after
> seeing the relay problem, but it
> didn't help.
>
> *** main.cf ***
>
> # Debian specific: Specifying a file name will cause the first
> # line of that file to be used
As requested, here is our configuration. I added the helo restrictions
after seeing the relay problem, but it didn't help.
*** main.cf ***
# Debian specific: Specifying a file name will cause the first
# line of that file to be used as the name. The Debian default
# is /etc/mailname.
Am 26.02.2013 12:35, schrieb Jamie:
> Borja
>
> I am pretty sure of it. After I blocked the ip address, the spam stopped
> coming. It is no co-incidence that 113.167.239.162 resolves to localhost
> (see: http://remote.12dt.com/ for confirmation).
>
> I am fairly certain that our mail server has n
W dniu 26.02.2013 02:27, Wietse Venema pisze:
Piotr Rotter:
W dniu 26.02.2013 01:56, Wietse Venema pisze:
Piotr Rotter:
Hello,
Can I set postfix to reject empty sender address for authenticated users.
I want to disallow this:
235 2.7.0 Authentication successful
MAIL FROM: <>
250 2.1.0 Ok
Borja
I am pretty sure of it. After I blocked the ip address, the spam stopped
coming. It is no co-incidence that 113.167.239.162 resolves to localhost
(see: http://remote.12dt.com/ for confirmation).
I am fairly certain that our mail server has not been hacked.
Regards
Jamie
On 2013/02/2
On Feb 26, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Jamie wrote:
> Hi
>
> Earlier today I noticed a spammer using my Postfix server as a relay to send
> out spam. This was puzzling because i had all requisite anti relay host
> settings applied. Further, it was particularly alarming that Postfix seemed
> to be rec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/2013 11:32 AM, Jamie wrote:
> Hi
>
> Earlier today I noticed a spammer using my Postfix server as a
> relay to send out spam. This was puzzling because i had all
> requisite anti relay host settings applied. Further, it was
> particularly ala
Hi
Earlier today I noticed a spammer using my Postfix server as a relay to
send out spam. This was puzzling because i had all requisite anti relay
host settings applied. Further, it was particularly alarming that
Postfix seemed to be receiving the spam messages from localhost as
indicated:
45 matches
Mail list logo
