On 03/09/17 00:43, Wietse Venema wrote:
> On 02/09/17 22:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Surprise: I already solved that problem: postscreen would hand off
>> the _decrypted_ session to the tarpitting daemon :-)
>
> Allen Coates:
>> How would you optionally hand off to the tarpit daemon, instead of
On 02/09/17 22:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Surprise: I already solved that problem: postscreen would hand off
> the _decrypted_ session to the tarpitting daemon :-)
Allen Coates:
> How would you optionally hand off to the tarpit daemon, instead of to
> postfix?
That requires new code for a config
On 02/09/17 22:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Surprise: I already solved that problem: postscreen would hand off
> the _decrypted_ session to the tarpitting daemon :-)
>
How would you optionally hand off to the tarpit daemon, instead of to
postfix?
Allen C
xiedeacc:
> will master.cf inherit parameters from main.cf ? like
> smptd_recipient_restrictions, I found I cannot set
> smptd_recipient_restrictions=check_recipient_access
> hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_access, it complaint fatal:
> unexpected command-line argument: hash:/etc.
>
master.cf wor
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:01:21AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Allen Coates:
> > > GIVEN THAT, when the Postscreen internal SMTP engine is invoked, the
> > > decision to reject the message has already been made;
> > > It seems to me that this is an opportunity to tar-pit the
Hi,
i think, i found the reason for the majordomo-problem.
Problem is the Update from perl4 to perl5.
I find the "$* is no longer supported at"-Message in my debug-file
/var/tmp/majordomo.debug
https://www.claudiokuenzler.com/blog/62/$*_is_no_longer_supported_majordomo#.War3WDdLezc
http://henry
I have an email address that sends to five people using a virtual-map line:
tinyl...@example.comm...@example.com, t...@example.com, (etc)
When tinylist receives email, header_checks uses the following test to
add a reply-to line to the header, so that replies go to 'tinylist'
rather than
[ To be sent separately also to the dane-us...@sys4.de list. ]
I sent a "please fix your TLSA records" notice to "postmaster" and
"info" at a domain whose primary MX host certificate fails to match
its TLSA records:
postfix/pickup[62805]: 7672C1DD39: ...
postfix/cleanup[63835]: 7672C1DD39
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:01:21AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Allen Coates:
> > GIVEN THAT, when the Postscreen internal SMTP engine is invoked, the
> > decision to reject the message has already been made;
> > It seems to me that this is an opportunity to tar-pit the (bad) remote
> > host, dimi
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 06:34:35AM -0700, xiedeacc wrote:
Note the below reformatting of the text you sent to show one logical
restrictin per line. When asking for help it is polite to make it
easier for others to help you. Try to not send a jumble of text
that others have to tease apart.
I've
will master.cf inherit parameters from main.cf ? like
smptd_recipient_restrictions, I found I cannot set
smptd_recipient_restrictions=check_recipient_access
hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_access, it complaint fatal:
unexpected command-line argument: hash:/etc.
--
Sent from: http://postfix.10716
thanks, I have read all those docs, and I find fix it, but after do some
tries, I find out config
wrong smtpd_relay_restrictions parameters , and ask another question, will
master.cf inherit parameters from main.cf like smptd_recipient_restrictions?
--
Sent from: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabb
xiedeacc:
> Hi, all
> my postfix now can send/recive mail from my own domain, and can send out
> mail to external mail server like gmail, but cannot recive mail from
> external mail server, mail.log said reject: RCTP from xxx 554 5.7.1
> Recipient addressd: Access denied
>
> smtpd_recipient_restri
Hi, all
my postfix now can send/recive mail from my own domain, and can send out
mail to external mail server like gmail, but cannot recive mail from
external mail server, mail.log said reject: RCTP from xxx 554 5.7.1
Recipient addressd: Access denied
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_recipient
Allen Coates:
> GIVEN THAT, when the Postscreen internal SMTP engine is invoked, the
> decision to reject the message has already been made;
> It seems to me that this is an opportunity to tar-pit the (bad) remote
> host, diminishing spam throughput, and eroding the host's useful life-span.
postsc
On 09/02/2017 01:16 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
Mandatory STARTTLS*and* disallowing any shared-secret mechanism (CRAM-MD5,
DIGEST-MD5, NTLM) is a clever move.
This way you protect the identity while it is transported from the client to
the server and you are able to store the passwords cry
* mj :
> Hi,
>
> Ok, so disallowing LOGIN is not a clever move :-)
Mandatory STARTTLS *and* disallowing any shared-secret mechanism (CRAM-MD5,
DIGEST-MD5, NTLM) is a clever move.
This way you protect the identity while it is transported from the client to
the server and you are able to store the
GIVEN THAT, when the Postscreen internal SMTP engine is invoked, the
decision to reject the message has already been made;
It seems to me that this is an opportunity to tar-pit the (bad) remote
host, diminishing spam throughput, and eroding the host's useful life-span.
I SUGGEST, therefore, that a
Hi,
Ok, so disallowing LOGIN is not a clever move :-)
Thanks for your answers!
MJ
On 09/02/2017 08:32 AM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
* postfix :
On 09/01/2017 04:25 PM, mj wrote:
Just a small question: we currently use posfix with sasl authentication,
and folowing many docs, we have enabled
19 matches
Mail list logo
