On Mar 14, 2012, at 21:03, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * Charles Marcus :
>> On 2012-03-14 2:39 PM, Ed W wrote:
>>> I see no reason to *require* encryption on the submission port (RFC
>>> aside).
>>
>> Unless you prefer that sniffers not be able to see your passwords
>> crossing the wire in pla
On Mar 14, 2012, at 19:39, Ed W wrote:
> On 13/03/2012 23:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> #submission inet n - n - - smtpd
>> # -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
>> # -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
>
> I forget the exact details now, but one mail client, I think i
On 13 jan. 2012, at 21:13, email builder wrote:
>>> We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. This avoids the false
>>> positives we saw while testing it as a reverse DNS restriction but,
>>> because the use of the reverse hostname as the HELO string is a
>>> common pattern in spam attempts f
On 11 jan. 2012, at 16:12, email builder wrote:
>> http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre <-- Stan's big list
>
> So who is using Stan's list? What do people have to say about
> it? What should I consider in regard to possibly implementing it?
We use a modified version as a HELO blacklist. T
On 9 apr 2011, at 18:54, Nasser Heidari wrote:
> We have an Exchange for our local Emails and Exchange uses Postfix as
> Smarthost.
> Address Rewriting is Working properly for Emails from Exchange to
> Outside network, but For Emails from Exchange to Postfix Virtually
> hosted Domains or Postfix
On 6 mrt 2011, at 22:34, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 3/6/2011 9:08 AM, DTNX/NGMX Postmaster wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that if you were to increase logging detail, you'd find that
>> 'permit_sasl_authenticated' evaluates to zero during the client restrictions
>>
On 6 mrt 2011, at 15:08, David Touzeau wrote:
>>> but it seems that postfix did not want to test the authentication
>>> method and pass it's rules trough subnet rules to finally refuse the
>>> connection with a "Client host rejected: Access denied"
[snip]
> smtpd_delay_reject = no
http://www.po
On 11/12/2010, at 18:17, Michael J Wise wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> Michael, thanks for helping.
>
> Most welcome, glad I could help.
>
> Just out of curiosity, and because so many back at the ranch are asking...
> Does anyone know if this problem just surface
On 05/12/2010, at 18:19, mouss wrote:
> Le 03/12/2010 01:55, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>> Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/2/2010 4:27 PM:
>>
>>> The OP is really far better off querying the LDAP server:
>>
>> That may be Viktor. I think he should test both and pick the solution
>> that works best
On 02/12/2010, at 13:19, Martin Kellermann wrote:
> Am 02.12.2010 13:11, schrieb Eero Volotinen:
>>> but i see a strange "double-bounce" in mail.log which i don't understand:
>> double-bounce is account used for validation of user account.
>
> thank you for explaining this... so everything seems
On 02/12/2010, at 23:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Martin Kellermann put forth on 12/2/2010 6:08 AM:
>
>> and there's a 5 sec. delay ... seems way too long to me for just
>> checking the recipient...!?
>
> That delay should be no longer than what a typical delivery to the
> Exchange server would be
On 01/12/2010, at 23:40, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Victor Duchovni put forth on 12/1/2010 3:41 PM:
>> It would be unwise of LaMont or Debian, having selected a particular
>> Postfix 2.x release (say 2.7) to not track the patch updates from time to
>> time. I understand that Debian stable or backports
On 01/12/2010, at 23:18, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Martin Kellermann put forth on 12/1/2010 9:19 AM:
>
>> so, is it still (seven years later) "The right thing™ to do" ?
>> will it work proper with exchange 2007/2010 ?
>> since the usage of "script-generated map-files" will never show
>> a real-time
On 24/11/2010, at 21:40, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> You'd be better off with SliceHost (RackSpace) than HE, and SliceHost
>>> sucks from a delivery standpoint.
>>
>> Hmm... Interesting. Delivery as in transactional or bulk? I only had one or
>> two slices from them, and off the bat had decent re
On 27/11/2010, at 06:59, Michael J Wise wrote:
>> Microsoft pay no heed to standards, ...
>
> Microsoft pays heed to standards, or a lot of the Internet just wouldn't work.
This does seem a bit funny, given the subject under discussion. I understand
that it is a big gorilla, and hard to turn on
15 matches
Mail list logo
