On 12 Mar 2018, at 22:44, J Doe wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding 8BITMIME.
I know Postfix supports 8BITMIME and does not support BINARYMIME, but
I am wondering why both 8BITMIME and BINARYMIME are ESMTP extensions.
It would appear that 8BITMIME solves the same problem as BINARYMIME
(
Hi,
I have a question regarding 8BITMIME.
I know Postfix supports 8BITMIME and does not support BINARYMIME, but I am
wondering why both 8BITMIME and BINARYMIME are ESMTP extensions. It would
appear that 8BITMIME solves the same problem as BINARYMIME (allow 8-bit
encoding of MIME), so why wasn
On 2018-03-12 12:12, Wietse Venema wrote:
Whereas compatibility is
easy to check for features that are implemented in one place,
smtputf8 affects a lot of programs. One would have to enable it
under the covers, but not enforce it.
Thanks for the explanation. I'll be more careful the next time
* LuKreme :
> I may have asked this before, but if so I can't find the thread.
>
> I'd like to either reduce the amount that postfix logs or redirect certain
> events to a secondary log file (that I can put on a shorter rotation than the
> full mail log).
>
> Is there anyway to redirect, for ex
I may have asked this before, but if so I can't find the thread.
I'd like to either reduce the amount that postfix logs or redirect certain
events to a secondary log file (that I can put on a shorter rotation than the
full mail log).
Is there anyway to redirect, for example, post screen events
On 03/12/2018 08:12 AM, wp.rauchholz wrote:
# POP3
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXT_DEV -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --syn
--dport 110 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXT_DEV -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --syn
--dport 995 -j ACCEPT
# IMAP
iptables -A INPUT -i $EXT_DEV -m state --state NEW -
On 3/12/2018 8:15 AM, Enrico Morelli wrote:
> Deal, a software that control an hardware has to send alarm mail when
> something happens. Starting from two weeks ago, the alarms stops to be
> sent and checking in the mail server logs I see the following message:
>
> Mar 12 09:03:57 mailserver amavi
I run my mail server on CENTOS 7. The server is modem/router and as such has
two NICs; internal and external.
Since migrating to iptables, I cannot access the mail server anymore; nor
telnet, neither web client.
My webserver works just fine. I can't find an error message in
/var/log/maillog or /var
On 12.03.18 14:15, Enrico Morelli wrote:
Deal, a software that control an hardware has to send alarm mail when
something happens. Starting from two weeks ago, the alarms stops to be
sent and checking in the mail server logs I see the following message:
Mar 12 09:03:57 mailserver amavis[14797]: (
mauri...@caloro.ch:
> Mar 12 14:50:02 mail postfix/postscreen[5446]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> [IP]:4458: 450 4.3.2 Service currently unavailable; from=<>,
> to=, proto=ESMTP, helo=
> Mar 12 14:50:02 mail postfix/postscreen[5446]: PASS NEW [IP]:4458
> Mar 12 14:50:02 mail postfix/postscreen[5446
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:09:23 +
"Fazzina, Angelo" wrote:
> Hi, I would expect you need to search your logs for all the entries
> for this email
>
> CB9E3837E0F
>
> To see exactly what happened and go from there ?
> Good Luck.
>
Mar 12 09:03:57 mailserver amavis[14797]: (14797-01) Blocked S
I have only changed the DNSBL now it will come back with "NOQUEUE: reject
RCPT"
Mar 12 14:49:53 mail postfix/smtpd[5425]: disconnect from
localhost[127.0.0.1]
Mar 12 14:49:54 mail postfix/smtp[5428]: 759654071A:
to=<*@stamper.itconsult.co.uk>, relay=et05.itconsult.net[135]:25, delay=1.1,
delay
Hi, I would expect you need to search your logs for all the entries for this
email
CB9E3837E0F
To see exactly what happened and go from there ?
Good Luck.
-ANGELO FAZZINA
ITS Service Manager:
Spam and Virus Prevention
Mass Mailing
G Suite/Gmail
ang...@uconn.edu
University of Connecticut, IT
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 09:59:27AM +, Allen Coates wrote:
> Late last year I tried the Postscreen "deep protocol tests" as a
> primitive form of greylisting; It was a high-maintenance exercise
> for minimal benefit and I have since stopped using it.
>
> Google and the like, use a different m
Nikolai Dahlem:
> Am 2018-03-09 13:13, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> >> delay=0.51, delays=0.21/0/0.17/0.13
> >
> > Just to be sure, these numbers include receiving and delivering mail.
> >
> > 0.21time from message arrival to last active queue entry
> > 0 time from last active queue
Alfredo De Luca:
> Hi all.
> We have Postfix 2.10 as company mailserver.
> I noticed that when I send an email to a not-existing user mailbox in our
> domain I don't receive an email back saying unknown mailbox or similar.
>
> What do I need to do on main.cf in order to achieve that?
There is no
Hi John,
You are correct, this is my mistake. I went back through the logs, and this
was NOT nabble. I attempted to register another account for the forum in
order to generate the e-mail, and this server which issued the help command
had coincidentally connected within a few seconds of nabble's
> On Mar 12, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> out of curiosity: the compatibility readme documents "backwards-compatible
> default setting relay_domains=$mydestination" and that the empty value
> "default value has changed from "$mydestination" to the empty value. This
> coul
Deal, a software that control an hardware has to send alarm mail when
something happens. Starting from two weeks ago, the alarms stops to be
sent and checking in the mail server logs I see the following message:
Mar 12 09:03:57 mailserver amavis[14797]: (14797-01) Blocked SPAM
{DiscardedOpenRelay,
On 2018-03-12 (06:40 MDT), "@lbutlr" wrote:
>
> It is not worthwhile because two many mailers will use different servers to
> send mail, which will hit the greylist all over again. This means a lot of
> maintenance for those (and we're talking mailers like google, amazon, PayPal,
> fleabay, et
On 2018-03-11 (20:39 MDT), john wrote:
>
> I greylisting still considered worthwhile or should I drop it?
It is not worthwhile because two many mailers will use different servers to
send mail, which will hit the greylist all over again. This means a lot of
maintenance for those (and we're talk
Hello,
out of curiosity: the compatibility readme documents "backwards-compatible
default setting relay_domains=$mydestination" and that the empty value
"default value has changed from "$mydestination" to the empty value. This
could"
under which curcumstances can this cause an error?
if the doma
The experiment DID stop a few zombies, but not many.
On 12/03/18 02:39, john wrote:
I was just taking a look through my postfix configuration and noticed
that I have a "check_policy_service" for postgrey a greylisting service.
I greylisting still considered worthwhile or should I drop it?
On
Jesper Dybdal:
> What I do not understand, postfix-wise, is that I have seen no warnings
> about "using backwards-compatible" default value of smtputf8_enable
> during the period where I was using compatibility_level=0.?
With compatibility_level=0, Postfix always accepts mail with a
non-ascii h
Late last year I tried the Postscreen "deep protocol tests" as a
primitive form of greylisting; It was a high-maintenance exercise for
minimal benefit and I have since stopped using it.
Google and the like, use a different mail server for each connect
attempt. You need an actively maintained whit
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:40:25AM +0100, Alfredo De Luca wrote:
> We have Postfix 2.10 as company mailserver.
> I noticed that when I send an email to a not-existing user mailbox in our
> domain I don't receive an email back saying unknown mailbox or similar.
Please follow the instructions layed
Hello Bastian,
Thanks for the advice, I will consider it. I am pretty sure to know how to do
this.
However, because the CardDav server is on the same host, I think it should not
be an issue.
I made a few tests, and the performances are even better than some anti-spam
milters like SpamAssassi
On 09.03.18 11:40, Alfredo De Luca wrote:
We have Postfix 2.10 as company mailserver.
I noticed that when I send an email to a not-existing user mailbox in our
domain I don't receive an email back saying unknown mailbox or similar.
the mailserver should reject the unknown recipient address, ins
28 matches
Mail list logo
