On 9/16/19 8:47 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
Hello,
How can I refuse mail from hosts who don't have an open port 25?
What do you think from such a check?
DO NOT DO THIS!
A significant number of installations will use different servers for
inbound and outbound email. What is worth checking,
On 5/14/19 1:41 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
Has anyone implemented geo based restrictions for postfix login connections, or
is this something that needs to be done in dovecot?
I was thinking someway to add most of Asia and Eastern Europe to postscreen
checks would be useful?
You can always use acces
On 4/23/19 11:54 AM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
* John Peach:
/^From:.*\@example\.com/ REJECT
This header check will not catch the envelope sender, so I suggest
adding "check_sender_access pcre:/path/to/sender_access" to the mix
(file content according to your needs, of course).
It is
On 4/23/19 11:39 AM, Paul wrote:
Yes I agree with Kevin here, the best solution to this problem is an spf record
set to reject mail from any ip that’s not in your allowed list of ips for your
domain. Forging a from address is very easy and is one of the main purposes of
why spf was created.
On 2/28/19 8:51 AM, Emanuel wrote:
it's not what I need thanks.
El 28/2/19 a las 10:45, Bastian Blank escribió:
ou block the users sending them.
It probably is - legitimate Amazon email comes from servers in
amazonses.com - block email purporting to be from Amazon if the server
is not in th
On 07/25/2018 01:36 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:31, Software Information
wrote:
Recently though, auditors made a deal that the server is an open relay.
Based on the rest of this thread, it sounds very much like the auditors are
incompetent. I mean, not knowing what an open rel
On 12/13/2017 10:52 AM, L.P.H. van Belle wrote:
Hai,
mailscanner runs fine here for about 5-6 years now, with postfix.
Mailscanner + postfix (postscreen) rules here :-)
You *think* it's been running fine. When the author of postfix
specifically warns against using it, it would be foolhardy t
On 11/15/16 13:43, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
> I'm trying to successfully receive emails from my state's health care
> service, which is apparently broken in the way it sends emails. These
> are the errors:
>
> ericabrahamsen.net/smtpd[24193]: warning: hostname\
> mail-relay.secure-24.net does n
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 19:45:08 +0200
Anonymous12 wrote:
[snip]
> > show your "/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd" with passwords replaced and the rest
> > untouched
> >
> >> OS: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
> >> I'll not show what packages I have installed as I see no reason to
> >
> > well then help yourself, nobody
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:52:22 -0400
Jean-Sébastien Nicaise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM, John Peach wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:43:01 -0400
> > Jean-Sébastien Nicaise wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > I'm hoping for some
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:22:22 +0100
Jim Reid wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2013, at 18:01, "John Levine" wrote:
>
> > There is a somewhat popular convention that if a domain publishes an
> > MX like this:
> >
> > whatever.example MX 0 .
> >
> > it means the domain does not receive mail.
>
> Well yes. B
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:25:09 -0300
Fernando Maior wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not an specialist in Postfix, just a common admin. Yet, I can
> see two things from your message:
>
>1. You sure have a DNS resolution problem. No external server
> should be resolved to 192.168.x.x, that is an internal
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:06:20 -0600
Blake Hudson wrote:
> Just hoping to get a consensus on this. Postfix is stating that a
> host (in fact several hosts from the same ISP) does not have rDNS,
> because our DNS (Bind 9.8) returns SERVFAIL when looking up a PTR
> record for it. The IP in question i
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:00:58 -0500
James Seymour wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:51:15 +0200
> אנטולי קרסנר wrote:
>
> > No, the mailing list is a legitimate way to connect with all postfix
> > users ...
>
> The mailing list I thought was supposed to be about Postfix, or at
> least vaguely Po
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:37:00 -0200
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote:
>
> >> There's gotta be a solution for this.
> >
> > There is - you need to register your mailserver(s) with yahoo
>
> You mean Yahoo's Feedback Program (feedbackloop.yahoo.net) ?
I forget exactly what needs doing, but you defi
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:29:06 -0200
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote:
> I was watching my log files now looking for deferred errors, and for
> my surprise, we got temporary blocked by Yahoo on some SMTPs (ips),
> as shown:
>
> Jan 9 13:20:52 mxcluster yahoo/smtp[8593]: 6731A13A2D956: host
> mta5.am
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 01:08:58 +0800
LEON wrote:
>
> How to avoid receive the mail that i post to this mail list?
Stop posting to the list.
>
>
> On 09/16/2012 01:00 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:* LEON :
> What command to get this information?
>
> host -t ns 54.107.218.in-addr.arpa
>
--
Joh
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 22:46:10 +0200
Lorens Kockum wrote:
> The exact same question was sent by someone calling himself
> "Ron White" to the exim mailing list at almost exactly the same
> time. Peddling one's services by soliciting comparisons with
> competitors is so passé . . .
I find it rather u
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:09:45 +0800
Feel Zhou wrote:
> Thank you very much
> My system is Centos6.2/64bit
> do not have the command "sealert"
> Maybe not install
> So I set setenforce 0, make selinux permissive
> And it has no change for debug log
Whichever system account you're running amavisd u
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:04:16 -0700
"Daniel L. Miller" wrote:
> After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix -
> using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates",
> and "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known
> SSL versio
no
> transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
> unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
> virtual_alias_domains = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
> virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
> It's not delivering to the mmtnetworks.com.au domain also.
>
>
> regards
&
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:44:31 +0800
"JonL" wrote:
> I'm getting the following in my mail logs for a new postfix system.
> OS = SuSE Linux Enterprise v10
>
> Thanks
>
> mail log error
> Jun 18 15:20:24 linux-srv postfix/smtpd[6509]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> emessenger.cisco.com[192.86.51.17]
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:30:54 -0700
kar...@mailcan.com wrote:
>
> I've been writing scripts for my loganalysis chores. A typical log
> entry for a mail transaction looks like,
[snip]
> Since it's Postfix doing the writing to the logs in the 1st place, is it
> possible to config Postfix to (free
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:10:26 -0700
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:56 PM +0400 Michael Tokarev
> wrote:
>
> > Besides, gcc --print-search-dirs (as already used in makedefs)
> > includes all necessary multiarch directories already. So
> > I'm not really sure why t
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:19:14 -0300
francis picabia wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Giles Coochey
> wrote:
> > On 23/03/2012 15:37, francis picabia wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM, francis
> >> picabia wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We have a difficulty delivering to a site runni
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:08:13 -0600 (CST)
Dan The Man wrote:
>
>
> I agree completely, but I don't think a student failing a course
> because he only has a yahoo/shaw etc address and got a legitimate
> email bounced would agree very much :)
>
> I think my solution should stand, we got all the o
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:33:48 +0530
Ram wrote:
>
>
> On 10/13/2011 02:37 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * Noel Jones:
> >
> >> You might be able to do something with check_recipient_mx_access.
> > Mostly, these domains have no MX, but only an A record. But yes, I
> > havne'T yet checked if they
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:17:13 -0400 (EDT)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Crazedfred:
> > >? Crazedfred :
> > > > What is the result of:find / -name smtpd.conf
> > >
> > > sudo find / -name smtpd.conf
> > > /usr/lib/sasl2/smtpd.conf
>
> > read the debian documentation!
>
> Could you elaborate?
> Am I lo
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:10:29 +0200
Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
> On Wed Aug 31 2011 12:01:20 GMT+0200 (CET),
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > annyone can acknowledge that following dnsbl services are not
> > reachable?
> >
> > zen.spamhaus.org*2DOWN
> > b.barracudacentral.orgDOWN
> >
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:39:43 -0400
Jerry wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:43:09 -0500
> Stan Hoeppner articulated:
>
> > pf at alt-ctrl-del.org put forth on 4/10/2011 10:33 PM:
> >
> > > My thought on auto combating this is to use a CIDR list to kick
> > > these networks (and only these network
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:44:13 +0100
J4K wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 11:54 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner
> > wrote:
> >> In the mean time, maybe give this a go. 1600+ expressions matching rDNS
> >> patterns of many millions of broadband IPs worldwide that
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:30:35 +0100
Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 03:49:55PM -0500, Jerrale G wrote:
> > from *mail.sheltoncomputers.com (mail [127.0.0.1]) * by
> > mail.sheltoncomputers.com (SC Mail Server) with ESMTP id
> > 182431B60017for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011
> > 15:44:05 -
n backscatter
lists.
>
> Thanks,
> C.R.
>
> On 12/22/2010 7:53 PM, John Peach wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:52:03 +0200
> > Razvan Chitu wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hello again,
> >> This time the question is simple: my server is
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:52:03 +0200
Razvan Chitu wrote:
> Hello again,
> This time the question is simple: my server is being maliciously
> used to send spam, and this has to stop. Here are the log entries in
> question (latest ones):
[snip]
> Also, I'm having a lot of these kind of entries
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:10:45 -0500
Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 04:48 PM, Steffan A. Cline wrote:
> > CIDR blocking all of China with an auto whitelist for those that
> > you email directly?
> I don't know anyone in China, I know someone who travels there, but he
> has a Bellsouth addre
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:28:42 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:15 -0400, John Peach wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000
> > Noel Butler wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
> > >
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
>
>
>
> > sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years and
> > are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist for them.
> >
>
>
> That
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:13:25 +1100
James Gray wrote:
>
> On 06/10/2010, at 9:37 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 23:46 +0200, mouss wrote:
> >> Le 04/10/2010 23:03, Terry Gilsenan a écrit :
> >>> Configure postfix to use SPF, and setup an SPF record in DNS for that
> >>> doma
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:33:04 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
> > Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Ciao
> >>>
> >>> Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in virtual
> >>> mailbox table" reject code from 450 to 550 (don't send again)
>
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:26:46 +0200
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> > Ciao
> >
> > Somebody have any idea how can i change "User unknown in virtual
> > mailbox table" reject code from 450 to 550 (don't send again)
> >
>
> The "unknown_virtual_mailbox_reject_code" response defaults to 550.
> If it is not
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:50:53 -0400
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I am getting a lot of these for various domains...
>
> Jun 2 07:21:08 esmtp postfix/smtpd[55535]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> from mail.cypresspartners.com[72.242.211.227]: 450 4.1.8
> : Sender address
> rejected: Domain not found;
>
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:35:55 -0400
Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:29, John Peach
> wrote:
>
> > 465 is for SMTP over SSL, which is deprecated.
> >
>
> What is deprecated? Using port 465? Or doing SMTP over SSL?
SMTP over SSL
> Unfortun
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:26:33 -0400
Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 14:48, Matt Hayes
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> > > I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on"
> > > SSL/TLS (e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS
>
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:03:22 +0200
"Sasa" wrote:
> Hi, I have a problem with some mails that are discarded when in body
> message there is a web link with http prefix, i.e. with:
>
> http://www.example.com/example
>
> with this link the mail is discarded and in log file I have:
>
> [r...@mail
On Sun, 16 May 2010 20:52:54 +0100
Frank Shute wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My ISP suddenly started bouncing my mail.
>
> I phoned them up and they started saying "In profiles do...". I
> pointed out at that point that I used
> Unix and the tech took fright & said that he'd get somebody to ring me
> back;
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:30:58 -0400
"N. Yaakov Ziskind" wrote:
> Sahil Tandon wrote (on Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:02:34AM -0400):
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> >
> > > Sahil Tandon wrote (on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:23:22PM -0400):
> > > > Assuming you did not make any mistakes
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:47:08 -0400
Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
>
> > Sahil Tandon wrote (on Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:02:34AM -0400):
> > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sahil Tandon wrote (on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:23:22PM -0
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:09:38 -0400
donovan jeffrey j wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> > * donovan jeffrey j :
> >
> >> this system in question picks up mail ( primary MX ) for about
> >> 2000 users.
> >
> > This should well be within the limits. We're execee
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:53:03 -0400
donovan jeffrey j wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> > * donovan jeffrey j :
> >> Greetings
> >>
> >> i have been seeing tons of errors coming from spamhaus, it seems
> >> it's not resolving. at least for me. is anyone else ha
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:15:59 -0600
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> Well, there's one positive side to this thread Noel. Your reply to
> "undisclosed
> recipients" instead of the list address broke my postfix-users sort filter. I
> just spent 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I tried "received" an
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:32:34 +0100
"Dr. Lars Hanke" wrote:
> I had a quite strange issue. About a week ago my bind9 broke down and I
> could not get it running again on the same machine. So moved it to
> another machine and changed the /etc/resolv.conf of my machines to try
> both IP. Apparent
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:39:35 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the big difference
> >> when it comes to address verific
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >>> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
> >> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no
> >> legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
> >
> > I
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:10:53 +0100
Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires
> > HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
> I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:40:02 -0400
D G Teed wrote:
[snip]
>
> Due to the hardwired default of 450, all sent mail becomes sluggish
> on the Exchange queue as hundreds of messages are retried
> every few minutes (one mistyped domain in a mail list triggers this
> behaviour in MS Exchange).
Fix
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:58:28 -0600
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
> Two words: LIST MAIL. When you reply directly to senders, all kinds
> of unpleasant things can happen. Keep replies on list only and you
> can avoid seeing some of the draconian things folks do.
>
setting the reply-to header hel
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:36 +0200
Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
> > Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
> > political infighting going on recently which makes us a little
> > nervous about its future. In addition we have found that a number
> > of the core packages we
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:29:00 +0100
Marco Giardini wrote:
> * Wietse Venema [2009-11-26 12:20:19 -0500]:
>
> > Marco Giardini:
> > > I have a barracuda server that receives mails, filter them and forward
> > > to a
> > > linux system running postfix.
> > >
> > > Both machine have a public IP
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
> John Peach wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
> > Jim Lang wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jim Lang:
> >>>
> >>>
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:26 -0700
Jim Lang wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Jim Lang:
> >
> >> OK here is the scenario.
> >>
> >> Spammer sends mail to: u...@myclientsdomain.com from forged
> >> address vic...@randomdomain.com
> >>
> >> If u...@myclientsdomain.com is delivered locally, no
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:22:43 +
"Sharma, Ashish" wrote:
> John
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> But please post some reference link or samples as I am unable to
> understand your answer.
It is not a function of postfix; you need to configure whatever
mail-reading program you use to show them.
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:43:34 +
"Sharma, Ashish" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am unable to see the following headers in e-mails received on my
> Postfix e-mail receiving server:
>
>
> 1. Return-Path
>
> 2. Received: from
>
> Similar to header on gmail
>
> Received: from dev16 ([123.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:03:36 +1000
Barney Desmond wrote:
> 2009/9/30 Postfix User :
>
> > I've since implemented an iptables SNAT rule as a temporary
> > workaround as I really needed this working this morning. I doubt
> > this will interfere with the verbose logging output. What exactly
> > is
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:57:54 -0300
Postfix User wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 14:28 +0530, ram wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 00:58 -0300, Postfix User wrote:
> > > I'm having an issue getting the smtp client to bind to an aliased
> > > IP address.
> > >
> > > mail_version = 2.5.7
> > >
>
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:06:54 +0200
K bharathan wrote:
> if the relay host has got a username and password how can i specify
> these in the main.cf
> a google on this showed me the following:
>
> relayhost = smtp.example.com:25
> smtp_sasl_auth_enable=yes
> smtp_sasl_password_maps=hash:/etc/p
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:11:49 +0800
"sosogh" wrote:
>
> 2009-08-03 21:02:01 Udo Mueller wrote:
>
> >My question: Is it possible to disable the domain check an let
> >postfix send these emails to me.vodafone.com
>
> Yes.You can use transport_maps
> http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html
>
> de
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:18:52 +0200
Robin Smidsr__d wrote:
[snip]
> Willy De la Court wrote:
>
>
> Does this mean that all of the reject rules are in fact not
> RFC-conformant?
>
> The reason I mention reject_invalid_helo_hostname is that I'm unsure
> if the IPv(4|6) address syntax is part of thi
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:49:13 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 13-Jul-2009, at 16:24, Keld J__rn Simonsen wrote:
> > Is there a way to disambiguate between DNS timeouts and DNS errors,
> > and discard the latter?
>
>
> Why the devil would you want to discard mail based on a DNS error?
> DNS errors have
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:24:04 +0200
Keld J__rn Simonsen wrote:
[snip]
> #
> ==
> # service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command +
> args # (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (100) #
> ==
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:25:01 +0200
Keld J__rn Simonsen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 07:07:01AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 7/13/2009, Keld J__rn Simonsen (k...@dkuug.dk) wrote:
> > > I am getting it via fetchmail
> >
> >
> >
> > If you are getting it through fetchmail, then the
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 20:46:16 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 3-Jul-2009, at 20:35, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > what is the hate for backscatter founded in?
>
>
> Wait until you get hundreds of thousands of backscatter where
> someone has sent out spams with your user name as the From: address
> and hel
On Sat, 30 May 2009 12:38:59 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 31-May-2009, at 13:21, Javier wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 13:21:38 +1930
>
>
> I think that Date header is invalid, btw
why? It implies a timezone 19 1/2 hours ahead of GMT. Not impossible
>
--
John
On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:56:38 +0200
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Turns out Wietse was wrong:
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
>
All political; no real rational reasoning for it
--
John
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:23:33 +0200
mouss wrote:
> Carlos Williams a __crit :
> > [snip]
> > Content-filter at server.us wrote:
> >
> > A message from to: -> jthras...@server.us
> > was considered unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Our internal reference
> > code for your message is 16433-01/qNJ
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:05:52 +0100
suomi wrote:
[snip]
>
> In the postfix log, where the php-pear-Mail-Mime client sends all mails,
> for the mail in question I find the following:
>
> Mar 20 09:00:01 smtphost postfix/smtpd[3990]: connect from
> senderhost.mydomain.com[xxx.xxx.xxx.163]
> Mar
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:49:05 +
Jo__o Miguel Neves wrote:
> Charles Marcus escreveu:
> > Here's a link informing why indiscriminate use of SAV is bad, and what
> > it should be used for:
> >
> > http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=sendercallouts
> OK, I've finished reading and analyzing tha
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:50:26 +0800
jan gestre wrote:
[snip]
> I have this same problem that I was not able to solve for almost a
> week now. I posted too on various mailing lists including this (mail
> from gmail and yahoo are blocked), some suggested to install a caching
> nameserver but obvio
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:09:07 -0500
sean darcy wrote:
> I have a voip server that receives faxes in a tif file. I use
> fax2email to convert the tif to a pdf and send it as an attachment
> over postfix. My isp blocks port 22, so I've setup a gmail account to
> use as a relay. That generally work
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:32:32 -0500
brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A client who uses Windows/Thunderbird is reporting the following error
> when attempting to connect to her INBOX:
>
> "TLS not supported by avast mail scanner."
>
She needs to disable mail-scanning in Avast.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:39:32 -0300
"Jaap Westerbeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok the (or some) spammer came back.
>
> For some reason everything seems to originate from localhost, which isn't
> telling me much.
> Where to look , what to do ?
>
[snip]
You need the log entries for the email BE
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:29:04 -0700
Asai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Peach wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:09:37 + (UTC)
> > Duane Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Responding to the original message...
> >>
>
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:09:37 + (UTC)
Duane Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Responding to the original message...
>
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Asai wrote:
>
[snip]
>"They may be having issues or you may be on their private blacklist."
>
> worldswidedomainnames.com isn't even a registered d
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:40:57 -0400
Chad Whitacre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Please cite the relevant section of the relevant RFC.
> > Happy to if you point me to it. I'm not an expert.
>
> Is this the right place?
>
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5
>
If it is, it
84 matches
Mail list logo
