On 2/27/2013 4:11 PM, אנטולי קרסנר wrote:
Hello e-mail software developers and users!
I'd like to ask all of you a question. And of course hear relevant
opinion.
I've been using free software happily for a few years, and I found
free/open source alternatives for many popular proprietary tools s
On 2/26/2013 8:53 AM, Jamie wrote:
On 2013/02/26 3:32 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
On 2/26/2013 7:52 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Like I said, as soon as I blocked the troublesome IP's the problem
went
away. Thus, it cannot be a local script. Furthermore,
we are not even running Apach
On 2/26/2013 7:52 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Like I said, as soon as I blocked the troublesome IP's the problem went
away. Thus, it cannot be a local script. Furthermore,
we are not even running Apache. We are running Tomcat with custom developed
Java apps.
I also ran tcpdump on localhost to see
On 2/24/2013 10:19 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Deeztek.com Support:
Most of the e-mail for that domain is of course relaying to the 1.1.1.1
server. However, there are some e-mail addresses on that domain that I
want to make an exception for and I need to relay the e-mail to 2.2.2.2
instead of
On 2/24/2013 9:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Deeztek.com Support:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On 2/24/2013 8:19 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Someone:
You can, but the bob entry is redundant. I don't recommend per-mailbox
transport entries at all, it is best to stick t
this would be done with virtual aliases that send
b...@example.com to b...@server-for-bob.example.com
Deeztek.com Support:
I cannot seem to find any reference to the format you have suggested
above for the aliases file. I tried it as
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/po
On 2/24/2013 6:39 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 24.02.2013 12:28, schrieb Deeztek.com Support:
On 2/22/2013 4:13 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Deeztek.com Support:
On February 22, 2013 3:40:22 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:13:27PM -0500, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
b
On 2/22/2013 4:13 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Deeztek.com Support:
On February 22, 2013 3:40:22 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:13:27PM -0500, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
b...@example.com smtp:[1.1.1.1]
m...@example.com smtp:[2.2.2.2]
example.com
On February 22, 2013 3:40:22 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:13:27PM -0500, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> >b...@example.com smtp:[1.1.1.1]
> >m...@example.com smtp:[2.2.2.2]
> >example.com smtp:somewhere.else
>
> Sorry about the top-postin
On 2/22/2013 2:13 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/22/2013 1:07 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear. This is what i want to do:
I want to be able to route e-mail send to b...@somedomain.com to
1.1.1.1 however, I also want to be able to route e-mail send
this is more clear.
Thanks in advance
On 2/22/2013 2:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/22/2013 12:39 PM, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
I'm trying to accomplish the following:
I'm trying to filter e-mail based on the to: field using a regexp
header_checks file as follows:
/^To: some...
I'm trying to accomplish the following:
I'm trying to filter e-mail based on the to: field using a regexp
header_checks file as follows:
/^To: some...@somedomain.com/ FILTER smtp:192.xxx.xxx.xxx
I thought with the above expression it would take the e-mail and deliver
to the 192.xxx.xxx.xxx a
On 9/12/2012 3:00 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:42:08PM +0200, Marwan Tanager wrote:
[snip a lot]
So, if changing the "FROM" header field with Mutt doesn't affect
the sender address that postfix sees, What does?
Someone pointed me that what counts for postfix is the address i
On 8/10/2012 12:06 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:50:26PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
Operationally a multi-instance system is easier to support. It
takes a small bit of effort to build, this is well worth it.
Maybe it's the way my brain works but what yo
On 8/9/2012 6:36 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 06:26:23PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
This is certainly not simpler then.
I would suggest that your simplicity metric is not the right one,
simplicity is about ease of understanding and ongoing maintenace,
more than
On 8/9/2012 6:16 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 05:11:49PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
So at this time you are recommending two separate machines instead
of two instances on the same machine?
No, I am recommending two instances per machine, one before the
filters
, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:48:19PM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
> The problem I'm having is this. It's my understanding that Amavis
> has to have an inject and re-inject port.
Certainly it listens for mail on the inject port, and forwards it
to the re-in(ject) port.
> In my c
On 8/9/2012 2:16 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36:30AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
So what are you saying is, instead of having amavis reinject back to
Postfix on 10022, to have it inject directly to the s/mime gateway
on port 10025 and then the s/mime gateway
On 8/9/2012 9:51 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:28:57AM -0400, Deeztek.com Support wrote:
I have the following setup:
Postfix, Amavisd-new and an email encryption gateway called djigzo
integrated into the same system:
Email flows is as follows:
Postfix-
-->10
Hi,
I have the following setup:
Postfix, Amavisd-new and an email encryption gateway called djigzo
integrated into the same system:
Email flows is as follows:
Postfix-
-->10021--->Amavis--->10022>Postfix>10025>Djigzo>10026>Postfix>25>Internet
Postfix injects
20 matches
Mail list logo
