For the first try peer debugging
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#debug_peer
For the second you want a header check.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> On 26-10-2012 23:06, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>
> > smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining,
> >
ealize now that I hadn't disabled cfengine when I did my testing earlier
and I bet my main.cf was fixed in between my edits. I should know better.
Thanks for the quick response
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> David DeFranco:
> > I read through the "Mul
I read through the "Multi Instance ReadMe" and didn't see an answer for my
question so I thought I'd just ask.
When I specify a configuration in the default instance of Postfix that
setting seems to be inherited by the other instances.
For example: I set message_size_limit on the default instance
If you implement attachment blocking with Postfix your users will be
able to bypass the restriction by simply renaming the extension on the
attached file.
If I was in your shoes I would look at amavisd-new.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 07:49 PM, Victo
While you're looking into a way to drop these connections as quickly
as possible I would turn down the number of SMTPD processes on your
server. That should give your server a break. I'd start at 50 and
tune from there.
change your master.cf to something like:
#
Huh, just found Noel's excellent response in my gmail Spam folder.
Sorry for the duplicate response.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David DeFranco
wrote:
> It's called Backscatter, and yes, it's a pain.
>
> Try this: http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
>
It's called Backscatter, and yes, it's a pain.
Try this: http://www.postfix.org/BACKSCATTER_README.html
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Cameron Camp
wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been asked (or point me thusly):
>
> My postfix box is getting e-mails where dirtbagspam...@whatever.com
> send
Interesting. You are right that the final result of the
virtual_alias_maps ends up being the original address. I really need
to talk to my directory team.
Thanks!
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> David DeFranco:
>> I have a problem with an &quo
reasonable virtual_alias_maps map nesting for use...@company.com
Apr 28 22:00:59 server postfix/cleanup[22885]: warning: 4D020F8131:
unreasonable virtual_alias_maps map nesting for use...@company.com
Which configuration item is setting that timeout?
Thank you
David DeFranco
No mailboxes on these servers so no worries there.
Thanks for all your time and help.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David DeFranco:
> > These are application generated messages and the format of the recipient
> > address is ver
t; > Instead of using (regexp) to grab the nexthop from the recipient
> > > localpart or domain part, specify the string explicitly.
> > >
> > > /..(regexp)../ ..$1..
> > >
> > > /..whatever../ ..whatever..
> > &
nks again
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David DeFranco:
> > I need data that's in the user part of the address to determine the
> > nexthop.
>
> With regexp substitution, this would give giving random users
> contr
nd of security hole are we talking about?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Victor Duchovni <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:27:59PM -0600, David DeFranco wrote:
>
> > According to the man page I can't do regular expression substitution in
> >
According to the man page I can't do regular expression substitution in
transport maps with Postfix 2.3 or later.
The trivial-rewrite(8) server disallows regular expression
substitution of $1 etc. in regular expression lookup
tables, because that could open a security hole (Postfix
version
14 matches
Mail list logo
