Hi,
The biggest question I have left is about your
permit_sasl_authenticated comments below.
>> smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_sasl_authenticated,
>> permit_mynetworks,
>> reject_non_fqdn_sender,
>> reject_unknown_sender_domain,
>>
On 3/12/2013 5:21 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is normal operation for a general-purpose mail server. Mail to
> local users can be received from anywhere (subject to spam
> controls). Only authorized users can relay to a third-party
> destinations.
>
> This is a typical
On 3/12/2013 5:11 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> or is it still related to the unresolvable
> appl...@tank.sub1.domain.com host as I initially thought?
>>
>> You said it was still rejected, but didn't show the new log entry
>> demonstrating the new problem. Without the new log entry, we can't
http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html#relay_from
http://www.postfix.org/BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README.html#relay_to
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
--
Viktor.
On 2013-03-12 Archangel wrote:
> Ok, Postfix is acting like a three year old.
Blame the person who messed up the configuration. Postfix is just the
messenger.
> When I try to send e-mail in roudcube, it returns, "Relay access
> denied". I telnet to port 25 on the server, ehlo and rcpt from withou
On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Archangel wrote:
> Ok, Postfix is acting like a three year old.
> When I try to send e-mail in roudcube, it returns, "Relay access denied". I
> telnet to port 25 on the server, ehlo and rcpt from without a problem. When
> I enter mail to: u...@domain.com it retur
Ok, Postfix is acting like a three year old.
When I try to send e-mail in roudcube, it returns, "Relay access denied".
I telnet to port 25 on the server, ehlo and rcpt from without a problem.
When I enter mail to: u...@domain.com it returns 554 5.7.1 :
Relay access denied. Apparently, this is a po
Hi,
This is normal operation for a general-purpose mail server. Mail to
local users can be received from anywhere (subject to spam
controls). Only authorized users can relay to a third-party
destinations.
This is a typical setup for an internet-facing mail server.
>
Hi,
or is it still related to the unresolvable
appl...@tank.sub1.domain.com host as I initially thought?
>
> You said it was still rejected, but didn't show the new log entry
> demonstrating the new problem. Without the new log entry, we can't
> tell what happened.
I'm sorry, I misunde
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 03:23:14PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> The smtpd_relay_restrictions is intended for relay decisions
> only[1]. In this case, that looks like it would be:
>
> [ ... sound advice ... ]
>
> [1] of course, you can use smtpd_relay_restrictions -- or not use it
> -- however you
andr...@cymail.eu skrev den 2013-03-12 14:38:
[nice real from name]
I would like to make a suggestion regarding the Postfix lists to
adopt
a labelling for each message subject such that the subject begins
with the fingerprint
[Postfix].
and have DKIM valid afterwards ?
I find this kind of l
On 3/12/2013 2:44 PM, Christian Rößner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today I upgraded to the new 2.10.0 version. I have read the RELEASE_NOTES and
> looked inside postconf-manpage.
>
> As I understood, the smtpd_relay_restrictions are evaluated before
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions. In the RELEASE_NOTES I c
On 3/12/2013 2:41 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my check_sender_access file I have the following:
>
> 64.68.76.15 OK
>>>
>>> You have provided me with some great information that I will have to
>>> review and be sure I understand properly.
>>>
>>> I even removed the reject_u
Hi,
>>> This is normal operation for a general-purpose mail server. Mail to
>>> local users can be received from anywhere (subject to spam
>>> controls). Only authorized users can relay to a third-party
>>> destinations.
>>>
>>> This is a typical setup for an internet-facing mail server.
>>
>> I
Hi,
today I upgraded to the new 2.10.0 version. I have read the RELEASE_NOTES and
looked inside postconf-manpage.
As I understood, the smtpd_relay_restrictions are evaluated before
smtpd_recipient_restrictions. In the RELEASE_NOTES I can read that there are 3
possibilities to deal with the new
Hi,
In my check_sender_access file I have the following:
64.68.76.15 OK
>>
>> You have provided me with some great information that I will have to
>> review and be sure I understand properly.
>>
>> I even removed the reject_unknown_sender_domain restriction and the
>> ma
On 3/12/2013 1:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 3/12/2013 1:35 PM, Alex wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
I have a really old system with an early version of postfix on it, but
I'm not sure the version really matters for my problem. I'm attempting
to use a pop-before-smtp hash as a way of providing auth
On 3/12/2013 1:55 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Mar 12 13:54:28 mail02 postfix/smtpd[24053]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
>>> from unknown[64.68.76.15]: 450 4.1.8 :
>>> Sender address rejected: Domain not found;
>>> from= to= proto=ESMTP
>>> helo=
>>
>> this is being rejected by the reject_unknown_sender_d
On 3/12/2013 1:35 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> I have a really old system with an early version of postfix on it, but
>>> I'm not sure the version really matters for my problem. I'm attempting
>>> to use a pop-before-smtp hash as a way of providing authentication
>>> prior to being able to use the
Hi,
>> Mar 12 13:54:28 mail02 postfix/smtpd[24053]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
>> from unknown[64.68.76.15]: 450 4.1.8 :
>> Sender address rejected: Domain not found;
>> from= to= proto=ESMTP
>> helo=
>
> this is being rejected by the reject_unknown_sender_domain
> restriction. The 450 suggests it's a
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:29AM -0700, Patrick wrote:
> I have one customer who since upgrading her DSL connection is now
> experiencing a 30 second delay each time she sends a message through
> our server:
>
> Mar 12 10:52:08 strongmad postfix/smtpd[25399]: connect from
> unknown[69.157.xx.xx
On 3/12/2013 1:10 PM, Alex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I realize questions about this error are all over the Internet, but
> the all involve fixing the broken DNS entries, which I can't do in my
> situation. I need to figure out how to work around this unresolvable
> address using access controls. This i
Hi,
>> I have a really old system with an early version of postfix on it, but
>> I'm not sure the version really matters for my problem. I'm attempting
>> to use a pop-before-smtp hash as a way of providing authentication
>> prior to being able to use the server to send mail. However, it
>> doesn'
Hi all,
I realize questions about this error are all over the Internet, but
the all involve fixing the broken DNS entries, which I can't do in my
situation. I need to figure out how to work around this unresolvable
address using access controls. This is for a postfix-2.9 system on
fc17.
I'm recei
Erwan David:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:33:43AM CET, Viktor Dukhovni
> said:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:28:11PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
> >
> > Nah, it's just that the 2.10.0 release is perfect and nobody has
> >
On 3/12/2013 9:57 AM, Алексей Доморадов wrote:
> Hello All.
>
> Is there possibility to override message_size_limit? For example, we
> have setup message_size_limit to 1 Mb. Client sent message to our
> mail server with attachment about 5 mb. Could we accept that
> message, remove any attachments
Hello All.
Is there possibility to override message_size_limit? For example, we have setup
message_size_limit to 1 Mb. Client sent message to our mail server with
attachment about 5 mb. Could we accept that message, remove any attachments
(altermime/etc) and delivery to the final destination?
Am 12.03.2013 15:16, schrieb Jerry:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Wietse Venema articulated:
>
>> andr...@cymail.eu:
>>> I would like to make a suggestion regarding the Postfix lists to
>>> adopt a labelling for each message subject such that the subject
>>> begins with the finger
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
Wietse Venema articulated:
> andr...@cymail.eu:
> > I would like to make a suggestion regarding the Postfix lists to
> > adopt a labelling for each message subject such that the subject
> > begins with the fingerprint
> > [Postfix].
>
> Use a mail filter.
andr...@cymail.eu:
> I would like to make a suggestion regarding the Postfix lists to adopt
> a labelling for each message subject such that the subject begins with
> the fingerprint
> [Postfix].
Use a mail filter. If you receive all your mail in the same inbox,
then you are working too hard.
I would like to make a suggestion regarding the Postfix lists to adopt
a labelling for each message subject such that the subject begins with
the fingerprint
[Postfix].
I find this kind of labelling extremely convenient for visually
identifying
the messages coming from lists but also to filter
On 3/11/2013 at 8:28 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
|Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
|
| Wietse
=
Quiet here. I'm just sitting back and watching Postfix do its thing.
Thanks!
On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:28 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
I thought the list was down during the migration to Sendmail ;)
Borja.
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 06:37:03 -0400
Jerry articulated:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:28:11 -0400 (EDT)
> Wietse Venema articulated:
>
> > Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
Well then, Quanah Gibson-Mount posted about a package that you wanted
available for you to do some te
Wietse Venema skrev den 2013-03-12 01:28:
Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
i see no problem here
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:28:11 -0400 (EDT)
Wietse Venema articulated:
> Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
No everything is working fine. We are just allowing you time to make
all those changes that you said you would do when you had a chance to.
--
Jerry ✌
postfix-u..
Am 12.03.2013 08:21, schrieb Erwan David:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:33:43AM CET, Viktor Dukhovni
> said:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:28:11PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
>>
>> Nah, it's just that the 2.10.0 release is per
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:33:43AM CET, Viktor Dukhovni
said:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:28:11PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Either it has become very quiet here, or something has broken.
>
> Nah, it's just that the 2.10.0 release is perfect and nobody has
> any questions anymore. :-)
38 matches
Mail list logo
