On Tue, November 19, 2013 1:34 pm, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:22:12PM +1100, li...@sbt.net.au wrote:
..
> This is correct, provided the domain is removed from any other
> address class.
..
> Provided this is postmapped and matches the actual domain.
..
> As expected.
..
> V
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:22:12PM +1100, li...@sbt.net.au wrote:
> I've tried adding to /etc/main.cf like:
>
> relay_domains = dom.org.au
> transport_maps = hash:$config_directory/transport
This is correct, provided the domain is removed from any other
address class.
> and /etc/transport
>
>
I would like to transfer some virtual domains to a new postfix server,
what is the proper way to do so,
I've tried adding to /etc/main.cf like:
relay_domains = dom.org.au
transport_maps = hash:$config_directory/transport
and /etc/transport
dom.org.au smtp:[emu.sbt.net.au]
that returned a warn
Jim Reid skrev den 2013-11-19 01:21:
Is there any good reason to hide or lie about your symptoms when you
visit a doctor?
doctors have read rfc1918 and link local interfaces for ipv6 ? :=)
On 18 Nov 2013, at 23:58, John Allen wrote:
> Is there any good reason to hide IP addresses and domain names etc when post
> to this list.
No.
Is there any good reason to hide or lie about your symptoms when you visit a
doctor?
Am 19.11.2013 00:58, schrieb John Allen:
> Is there any good reason to hide IP addresses and domain names etc when post
> to this list
it is your responsibility to decide what can be disclosed and what not
but keep always in mind the more you obfuscate the harder someone can help debug
by obfu
Is there any good reason to hide IP addresses and domain names etc when
post to this list. Password should of course be hidden/fudged etc.
On 11/18/2013 10:36 AM, Dominique wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to migrate from cyrus - (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server, Mysql
> Postfix, cyrus, webcyradmin, saslauth) to dovecot - (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
> Server, Mysql Postfix, Dovecot, Postfixadmin, saslauth)
> It all works fine with postfix/cyrus.
> However
Am 18.11.2013 17:36, schrieb Dominique:
> Nov 18 17:10:15 mail postfix/smtp[20654]: 2937521D41:
> to=, relay=smtp.isp.es[1.1.1.1]:25, delay=1.1,
> delays=0.09/0/0.87/0.18, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host
> smtp.isp.es[1.1.1.1] said: 522 Authenticate first (in reply to MAIL FROM
> command))
>
> I
Hi,
I am trying to migrate from cyrus - (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server, Mysql
Postfix, cyrus, webcyradmin, saslauth) to dovecot - (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
Server, Mysql Postfix, Dovecot, Postfixadmin, saslauth)
It all works fine with postfix/cyrus.
However under postfix/dovecot, I have a problem with my relayh
E.B. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My understanding was clients for whom you see this in the logs:
>
> connect from unknown[1.2.3.4]
>
> Do not have a PTR/rDNS set up for themselves.
For Postfix to include the rDNS in the log and Received: header, the PTR
name must then resolve back to that same IP as we
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 08:03:00AM -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> > I changed smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file to use a 2k dh key at the mx server.
> > That solved the problem ...
>
> I can't imagine that that didn't cause other problems. If a server
> negotiates for a dh1024 key and is expecting a dh1024 ke
On 18 Nov 2013, at 02:53 , Andreas Schulze wrote:
> I changed smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file to use a 2k dh key at the mx server.
> That solved the problem ...
I can't imagine that that didn't cause other problems. If a server negotiates
for a dh1024 key and is expecting a dh1024 key and it gets
Zitat von Viktor Dukhovni :
Any evidence of other legitimate MTAs that now routinely fail TLS handshakes?
no, I don't saw more TLS errors.
There is a usual noise of TLS failures that didn't changed.
Andreas
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:53:19AM +0100, Andreas Schulze wrote:
> >On the other hand, some Exim MTA SMTP clients (patched by a
> >well-meaning, but under-informed Debian maintainer) don't support
> >DH primes shorter than 2048 bits.
>
> I had trouble to receive messages from those sites too.
>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:43:17AM -0800, E.B. wrote:
> I did "dig -x 1.2.3.4" on the server for the same IP address and the result
> came back with the correct domain name. So why didn't postfix see the host
> name? I restarted postfix in case it was caching, but it didn't help.
Show proof. Es
Am 18.11.2013 12:43, schrieb E.B.:
> My understanding was clients for whom you see this in the logs:
>
> connect from unknown[1.2.3.4]
>
> Do not have a PTR/rDNS set up for themselves. However, I recently tested a
> connection (using telnet on the client side, connecting to port 25) from a
>
Hello,
My understanding was clients for whom you see this in the logs:
connect from unknown[1.2.3.4]
Do not have a PTR/rDNS set up for themselves. However, I recently tested a
connection (using telnet on the client side, connecting to port 25) from a
server that does have rDNS in place, but I
Thank you to Wietse and Viktor for the replies. Appreciate explanations very
much.
> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:42 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 07:34:47PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>
>> > I wanted to allow certain clients to relay by using a
> check_c
Zitat von Viktor Dukhovni :
On the other hand, some Exim MTA SMTP clients (patched by a
well-meaning, but under-informed Debian maintainer) don't support
DH primes shorter than 2048 bits.
I had trouble to receive messages from those sites too.
I changed smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file to use a 2
20 matches
Mail list logo
