* @lbutlr :
> On Sun Feb 28 2016 19:56:48 Ruben Safirsaid:
> >
> > Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my view of mailmans software
> > archetecture, at this point, is very low. He tries very hard to help
> > people and to work on it, but I think it is broken at the core.
>
> I am not cu
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 05:19:35PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > > To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is
> > > how it should be done.
Mine uses the same submission smtpd as do regular human users. It
is not impacted by any spam control restrictions.
> For submission of li
On 29 Feb 2016, at 2:43, Ruben Safir wrote:
Can I have input about this recommendation? Is there unreasonable
security
risk? I think not, but I want to double check
It's fine, assuming that you can trust everything else running on the
host that you're running Mailman and Postfix on not to
On Sun Feb 28 2016 19:56:48 Ruben Safir said:
>
> Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my view of mailmans software archetecture,
> at this point, is very low. He tries very hard to help people and to work on
> it, but I think it is broken at the core.
I am not currently hosting any mailing list
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> I can't tell from headers whether they use sendmail.org sendmail
> or postfix or something else, but amavisd-new is mentioned in the
> headers. amsl.com runs most of the mailing lists.
The ietf.org MTAs operated by AMSL run Po
In message <20160229171935.gh12...@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Viktor Dukhovni writes:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:38:26AM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> > > To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is how it
> > > should be done.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Note that much of the delay was
Hello.
Tnx for the prompt answer.
I already have a bastion MTA and an internal mailhub, hosted on separate
VMs. I'm also preparing an additional VM that will handle only the
outgoing traffic, in order to apply specific headers filtering as we
discussed some time ago.
The issue I have is with the
Marco:
> Hello.
>
> I have a small security concern with my external SMTP server:
>
> >220 mail.marcobaldo.ch ESMTP
> >250-iprovider.dmz.marcobaldo.ch
> >250-PIPELINING
> >250-SIZE
> >250-ETRN
> >250-STARTTLS
> >250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
> >250-8BITMIME
> >250 DSN
>
> As you see smtpd_banner has
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 05:58:19PM +0100, Marco wrote:
> I have a small security concern with my external SMTP server:
>
> >220 mail.marcobaldo.ch ESMTP
> >250-iprovider.dmz.marcobaldo.ch
> >250-PIPELINING
> >250-SIZE
> >250-ETRN
> >250-STARTTLS
> >250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
> >250-8BITMIME
> >250
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:38:26AM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is how it
> > should be done.
>
> Thanks!
Note that much of the delay was likely due to mailman hitting tarpit
controls after 10 invalid recipients in a single submission.
Hello.
I have a small security concern with my external SMTP server:
>220 mail.marcobaldo.ch ESMTP
250-iprovider.dmz.marcobaldo.ch
>250-PIPELINING
>250-SIZE
>250-ETRN
>250-STARTTLS
>250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
>250-8BITMIME
>250 DSN
As you see smtpd_banner has been changed to reflect the MX records.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:41:39AM +0100, Christian Kivalo wrote:
> On 2016-02-29 08:43, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >Can I have input about this recommendation? Is there unreasonable
> >security
> >risk? I think not, but I want to double check
>
> That looks sensible. That comes near to the configurat
On 2016-02-29 08:43, Ruben Safir wrote:
Can I have input about this recommendation? Is there unreasonable
security
risk? I think not, but I want to double check
That looks sensible. That comes near to the configuration i use for my
mailman installation.
You should not do rbl checks on the
13 matches
Mail list logo
