On 6 Sep 2018, at 22:06 (-0400), eaerhaerhaehae aehraerhaeha wrote:
I can send emails over port 465 using smtper.net just fine. It's the
clients (thunderbird, k-9,..) that cause an error when there is
supposed to be EHLO.
STARTTLS works perfectly for both, dovecot and postfix. TLS works
perfe
Hi.
2018-09-07 11:06 GMT+09:00 eaerhaerhaehae aehraerhaeha :
> I can send emails over port 465 using smtper.net just fine. It's the clients
> (thunderbird, k-9,..) that cause an error when there is supposed to be EHLO.
> STARTTLS works perfectly for both, dovecot and postfix. TLS works perfectly
I can send emails over port 465 using smtper.net just fine. It's the clients
(thunderbird, k-9,..) that cause an error when there is supposed to be EHLO.
STARTTLS works perfectly for both, dovecot and postfix. TLS works perfectly for
dovecot. Only postfix TLS is giving me trouble.
What could be
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:04:43PM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Sep 6 12:36:42 mx31 postgrey[85107]: action=pass, reason=client AWL,
> client_name=malton22-1176258451.sdsl.bell.ca,
> client_address=70.28.71.147, sender=c...@airportcargo.ca,
> recipient=impo...@harte-lyne.ca
This is from postgre
Starting shortly after midnight 20180906 our maillog file began to
record this sort of message pair every six minutes or so.
Sep 6 12:36:42 mx31 postgrey[85107]: action=pass, reason=client AWL,
client_name=malton22-1176258451.sdsl.bell.ca,
client_address=70.28.71.147, sender=c...@airportcargo.ca
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Luc Pardon wrote:
>
> However, although symlinks inside the Postfix dirs were not needed in
> the past, that has changed by now. They have become necessary because
> OpenSSL needs them to find its certificates, so we can't just tell the
> admin to get rid of them.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 13:05:02 -0400 (EDT)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Your observation is incorrect. I just did a test with
>
> mail from:wietse
Thank you, I digged the issue deeper and found out pre-queue content
filter which postfix runs as proxy setup was too picky. Problem
resolved by patching
On 05-09-18 18:18, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Luc Pardon:
>> The first question is obviously: can we disallow symlinks to the outside
>> world by definition? I'd say the answer is yes, but $(whoami) ?
>
> Here is some background on pathname safety.
>
Thanks for that. Also, the paper - at a first
