On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:58:20PM -0800, Grant wrote:
> Is message_size_limit still valid? All of the references I can find
> to it online are very old. Is there another postfix directive I
> should use to set the maximum upload size for roundcube?
Postfix configuration parameters don't capric
On 2/13/2014 7:58 PM, Grant wrote:
> Is message_size_limit still valid? All of the references I can find
> to it online are very old. Is there another postfix directive I
> should use to set the maximum upload size for roundcube?
>
> - Grant
>
Yes, it's still valid. That feature hasn't change
Is message_size_limit still valid? All of the references I can find
to it online are very old. Is there another postfix directive I
should use to set the maximum upload size for roundcube?
- Grant
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 02:35:30AM +0100, Sven Schwyn wrote:
> Our box sends lots of notifications to users every day and today
> I've noticed that all recipients from one specific domain (bluewin.ch)
> get stuck in the queue. Here's an example:
>
> E924E40406A4 2075 Thu Feb 13 19:25:50 no-r
Hi
Our box sends lots of notifications to users every day and today I've noticed
that all recipients from one specific domain (bluewin.ch) get stuck in the
queue. Here's an example:
E924E40406A4 2075 Thu Feb 13 19:25:50 no-re...@x.com
(delivery temporarily suspended: Host or domain
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:32:23PM +, robin.wakefi...@ubs.com wrote:
> I would like to try and achieve the following behaviour:
>
> Case A
> =
> Message sent to us...@hosta.xxx.yyy.zzz
> hosta.xxx.yyy.zzz contains an MX=0 record in our DNS
> Result: message to be routed to this user on th
Ah... excellent.
Thanks
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 2/13/2014 11:03 AM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
>> I am using this parameter to send message to be filtered by dspam.
>> However, I want local email to bypass dspam and go directly to mail
>> box server over lmtp.
>>
>> I
On 2/13/2014 11:03 AM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> I am using this parameter to send message to be filtered by dspam.
> However, I want local email to bypass dspam and go directly to mail
> box server over lmtp.
>
> I am not sure why the pcre code below doesn't work for local email.
>
>
>
> /^192\.1
Am 13.02.2014 18:03, schrieb Roman Gelfand:
> I am using this parameter to send message to be filtered by dspam.
> However, I want local email to bypass dspam and go directly to mail
> box server over lmtp.
>
> I am not sure why the pcre code below doesn't work for local email.
>
> /^192\.168\.0
I am using this parameter to send message to be filtered by dspam.
However, I want local email to bypass dspam and go directly to mail
box server over lmtp.
I am not sure why the pcre code below doesn't work for local email.
/^192\.168\.0.\d{1,3}$/ lmtp:[192.168.0.246]:24
/./ FILTER dspam:dsp
On 2/13/2014 9:12 AM, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm looking for a software to perform URIBLDNS body checks to use as
> a before-queue filter.
> The main requirement is massive speed (<100ms scan time), thus I am
> avoiding amavisd-new + spamassassin, even with tuned rules, in fa
On 2014-02-13 17:32, robin.wakefi...@ubs.com wrote:
Any thoughts, or is this not possible?
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-unix-bind9-named-configure-views/
if you do this postfix will solve it like the data bind9 provides
Hi,
I would like to try and achieve the following behaviour:
Case A
=
Message sent to us...@hosta.xxx.yyy.zzz
hosta.xxx.yyy.zzz contains an MX=0 record in our DNS
Result: message to be routed to this user on this host
Case B
=
Message sent to us...@hostb.xxx.yyy.zzz
hostb.xxx.yyy.zzz has
Am 13.02.2014 16:12, schrieb Fabio Sangiovanni:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm looking for a software to perform URIBLDNS body checks to use as a
> before-queue filter.
> The main requirement is massive speed (<100ms scan time), thus I am
> avoiding amavisd-new + spamassassin, even with tuned rules, in f
Fabio Sangiovanni:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm looking for a software to perform URIBLDNS body checks to use as a
> before-queue filter.
You could use body_checks with a tcp: or socketmap: server. The
socketmap protocol originates from Sendmail, and therefore I expect
that there are socketmap server
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for a software to perform URIBLDNS body checks to use as a
before-queue filter.
The main requirement is massive speed (<100ms scan time), thus I am
avoiding amavisd-new + spamassassin, even with tuned rules, in favor of
something written in a compiled language. Suppor
I forgot something important to mention. Maybe thats the source of our Problem?
Our Mail-Provider is the actual target of the mails. We fetch the mails from it
with fetchmail and pop3. Fetchmail then sends the mail to our intranet mails
system. When fetchmail receives the mail with pop3, the ret
Thanks for the quick help.
Sorry I sent the first answer not to the mailing list, because I just used the
reply funcion.
Unfortunatley the mails are not spam and the like to receive them. We've
tracked down the problem to a second mail-server that the problem mails passed
withing the infrastru
On 13/02/2014 09:46, template.mob...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
i'm using postfix in our small company successfully for many years.
But now a problem arised and I was not able to solve it myself or
with help from the docs.
We are using sender_bcc_maps, because we want any mail that is sent
from one of o
Am 13.02.2014 10:46, schrieb template.mob...@gmx.de:
> How does the sender_bcc_maps mechanism exactly works? Does it
> react on mail body header fields like return-path? Is it in
> detailed documented somewhere? Can we prevent sender_bcc_maps
> from reacting on the return-path field?
which fie
Hi,
i'm using postfix in our small company successfully for many years. But now a
problem arised and I was not able to solve it myself or with help from the docs.
We are using sender_bcc_maps, because we want any mail that is sent from one of
our employees to be copied to a central mail account
21 matches
Mail list logo
