FYI-
connect to sc1.scconsult.com[67.149.19.4]:25: Connection refused
Its been two days.
Maybe Bill has me blacklisted? Is it something I said? :-(
On the off chance that this is an error, I'm sending a heads up.
btw-
#host -t mx billmail.scconsult.com
billmail.scconsult.com mail is h
So, I'm having an issue with "Bad Sender Address Syntax" errors. The
errors are from a variety of formatted email address including some
strange ones like . At first, I would shrug
my shoulders to them but my customers started whining and they sort of
had a good point. You see, all of the ema
I have noticed this aswell, when badly configured forwarding servers don't
forward their mails correctly.
For example, take a example that:
someu...@somecorporation.com
is forwarded to
some.u...@somefreewebmail.com
You send a mail to someu...@somecorporation.com
Later on, you get a DSN (because S
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:08:57 -0700
li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> Yesterday's Google report had me passing. Could be related to adding
> the Google term to DNS.
>
Hold the presses here. It turns out my domain was spoofed in the
report that failed. The IP address used isn't mine. In the passing
re
Yesterday's Google report had me passing. Could be related to adding the Google
term to DNS.
Original Message
From: Tom Hendrikx
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:38 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Special method required for Gmail dkim/spf verification
On 13-04-16 01:54, l
Is there a way of negating a smtpd condition.
For example if I were to apply c "check_sender_access sql_lookup" under
submission in master.cf would it be possible to say something like
!check_check_acess ... under smtpd restrctions
The idea being that if example.com is allowed access via submis
Voytek:
> Apr 12 09:29:28 emu postfix/cleanup[27379]: C7C7D5E198: reject: header
> Content-Type:
> image/jpeg;??name=1.jpg;??x-apple-part-url="40018520-0eb6-425e-c64d-8c25cf1f6...@yahoo.com"
> from mail107.syd.optusnet.com.au[211.29.132.53]; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=: 5.7.1
> Attachment name
>
On 13-04-16 01:54, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> Google sent me a "fail" on my DMARC. Everyone else seems happy. It
> turns out much like Google not accepting robots.txt for some search
> engines controls, they expect special fields in their DNS.
>
> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/62271
