relay_recipient_maps and virtual_alias_maps

Hi Everyone, We are using postfix as an edge mx gateway for incoming mails. Our company has 3 domain names (@abpni.co.uk, @abpni.com, @abpni.net). @abpni.co.uk is our main domain. Each user may have a few "aliases". I list these aliases in the table which virtual_alias_maps points to. To tak

Online virtual_alias_maps

Hi Everyone, I have a Postfix edge MX server which is used to receive incoming mail from the outside world. This server forwards mail onto an internal SMTP server which has all the user accounts. Aliases are managed by the edge server. On the edge server, I have a virtual_alias_maps. It is p

Re: Multiple Users Reading Email

As has already been said, this is not a function of postfix, but Dovecot indeed can achieve this user 'per-user flags'... http://wiki.dovecot.org/SharedMailboxes/Public Perfect link :D Thanks!

Re: Multiple Users Reading Email

On 29/09/2011 16:45, Stan Hoeppner wrote: On 9/29/2011 10:27 AM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: We have 2 users wishing to share an email account. However, when one person reads the email, we would like the email for the other person to still be marked as unread. Stan, the "overall goal&q

Multiple Users Reading Email

Hi Everyone, Bit of a design question here. We have 2 users wishing to share an email account. However, when one person reads the email, we would like the email for the other person to still be marked as unread. Is there a way to do this using IMAP (where emails are stored centrally)? Or is

Re: Send to other server

On 24/02/11 09:58, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 24.02.2011 10:54, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: On 24/02/11 09:42, Reindl Harald wrote: We implemented this in our postfix/dbmail-setup this way You can do this also with config-files but i never setup any server without mysql-backends transport_maps

Re: Send to other server

; is the address/domain and on the right sude "transport" smtp:hostname.domain.tld Am 24.02.2011 10:26, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: Hi Everyone, I have a postfix box which handles some smtp accounts for example.com. Not all example.com accounts are located on this postfix box, but are

Send to other server

Hi Everyone, I have a postfix box which handles some smtp accounts for example.com. Not all example.com accounts are located on this postfix box, but are located elsewhere on another server. At the minute, for the accounts which aren’t on this server, postfix is saying "user unknown in virtu

Re: Network Ideas

On 14/01/11 18:13, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/13/2011 7:05 AM: What does everyone think of a DRBD + GFS2 idea? I wrote up a detailed response to the same question on the Dovecot list yesterday, in fact, in response to you. You did indeed, thanks Why are you

Re: HA mail system

/11 04:37, Jaques Cochet wrote: Jonathan, check http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/TUhSn61Ee1e4CqmzNaTd http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/linux-clus...@redhat.com/msg07430.html http://old.nabble.com/Dovecot-performance-on-GFS-clustered-filesystem-td19655678.html On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:0

Re: HA mail system

On 13/01/11 19:00, Jaques Cochet wrote: After some reading: - GFS and maildir work bad together - NFS and maildir are not that good, NFS and postfix have some issues but should be OK. Where did you read that GFS worked badly with maildir? I'd be interested to read into this Thanks

Re: Network Ideas

On 13/01/11 09:58, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 1/12/2011 8:58 AM: Major point is that GlusterFS is NOT another file system. GlusterFS uses a disk based backend and relies heavily on the underlying filesystem extended attributes for handling which file is more recent on

Re: HA mail system

On 13/01/11 05:42, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 13/01/11 05:36, Jaques Cochet wrote: Hi I'm working on a mail system design for an ISP that includes hosting of multiple virtual domains managed by this ISP (300.000 mailbox). HA and performance are both important concerns for the client,

Re: HA mail system

On 13/01/11 05:36, Jaques Cochet wrote: Hi I'm working on a mail system design for an ISP that includes hosting of multiple virtual domains managed by this ISP (300.000 mailbox). HA and performance are both important concerns for the client, so I have at least 2 of every server (webmail, pop3,

Re: Network Ideas

Oh and one final question, how does GlusterFS handle split-brain? Let's say somehow the replication link became broken, but both Postfix servers continued to operate... This is documentation from 2.x series of GlusterFS but it still applies to 3.x: http://www.gluster.com/community/documentati

Re: Network Ideas

Hello Jonathan, I think what I am getting confused over is whether or not your GlusterFS node are the same are your Postfix servers. yes. They are. I did a little reading online, and from my understanding, you have 2 GlusterFS server and 2 GlusterFS clients. Correct. Does this mean

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 14:00, Steve wrote: Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:42:14 + Von: Jonathan Tripathy An: postfix-users@postfix.org Betreff: Re: Network Ideas On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote: Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 13:42, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote: Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100 Von: John Adams An: postfix-users@postfix.org Betreff: Re: Network Ideas Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: On 12/01/11 10:45

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote: Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100 Von: John Adams An: postfix-users@postfix.org Betreff: Re: Network Ideas Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote: From: Jonathan Tripathy

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 12:47, John Adams wrote: Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote: From: Jonathan Tripathy > While your idea would work in HA mode, would that cause any problems if both postfix servers were used at the same time? (i.e. load balanced)

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote: From: Jonathan Tripathy > While your idea would work in HA mode, would that cause any problems if both postfix servers were used at the same time? (i.e. load balanced) In fact I may be able to answer my own question by saying yes, it would caus

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 10:18, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 12/01/11 10:15, John Doe wrote: From: Jonathan Tripathy I will have 2 Postfix/Dovecot servers. Each will be configured to use a central database and will also use an NFS mount for mail storage. Since they will both be configured with

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 10:18, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 12/01/11 10:15, John Doe wrote: From: Jonathan Tripathy I will have 2 Postfix/Dovecot servers. Each will be configured to use a central database and will also use an NFS mount for mail storage. Since they will both be configured with

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 10:15, John Doe wrote: From: Jonathan Tripathy I will have 2 Postfix/Dovecot servers. Each will be configured to use a central database and will also use an NFS mount for mail storage. Since they will both be configured with central storage, I can use my load-balancer to

Re: Network Ideas

On 12/01/11 02:11, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: On 2011-01-11 at 19:46:48 +, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: I will give authenticated clients direct access to the IMAP and SMTP ports on my load-balancer (No proxies). I will however only accept incoming mail from the internet via separate mx server

Re: Network Ideas

On 11/01/11 16:55, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 11.01.2011 17:25, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: So have my entire email system run on 2 boxes alone? Where is the problem? You can run hundrets of mail-domains in ONE virtual machine What if the postfix box were to go down? The you hopefully have

Re: Network Ideas

On 11/01/11 16:55, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 11.01.2011 17:25, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: So have my entire email system run on 2 boxes alone? Where is the problem? You can run hundrets of mail-domains in ONE virtual machine What if the postfix box were to go down? The you hopefully have

Re: Network Ideas

On 11/01/11 16:34, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: On 2011-01-11 at 16:25:38 +, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: So have my entire email system run on 2 boxes alone? What if the postfix box were to go down? What if the Dovecot box were to go down? In my solution, if a box (or VM in my case) were to go

Re: Network Ideas

If you really need to spread the load, setup two servers with Postfix and Dovecot. It would significantly reduce the complexity, and eliminate your issues with multiple IPs. It would also reduce the bottleneck with the proxy servers. So have my entire email system run on 2 boxes alone? What i

Re: Network Ideas

If you secure your daemons properly, it is not insecure to give customers direct access to the server. Even if they don't have direct access to the servers IP, they are still able to talk to the server using inherently insecure protocols like SMTP, IMAP, POP3, etc... If you are running an ISP e

Re: Network Ideas

Am 11.01.2011 13:56, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: Am 11.01.2011 13:47, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: if you believe you have received this email in error. Am 11.01.2011 13:27, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: On tir 11 jan 2011 11:52:12 CET, Jonathan Tripathy wrote I guess another way to do this would

Re: Network Ideas

Am 11.01.2011 13:47, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: if you believe you have received this email in error. Am 11.01.2011 13:27, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: On tir 11 jan 2011 11:52:12 CET, Jonathan Tripathy wrote I guess another way to do this would be to have the "front end smtp-out" ser

Re: Network Ideas

On tir 11 jan 2011 13:27:44 CET, Jonathan Tripathy wrote Other way round, which is a postfix issue :) okay a railrouad have 2 ends ? :) I'm trying to use a single postfix server for many dovecot auth servers multiple auth servers is imho silly, one dont backup that way, if you like

Re: Network Ideas

if you believe you have received this email in error. Am 11.01.2011 13:27, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: On tir 11 jan 2011 11:52:12 CET, Jonathan Tripathy wrote I guess another way to do this would be to have the "front end smtp-out" server do the sending itself and ask a customer&#x

Re: Network Ideas

On tir 11 jan 2011 11:52:12 CET, Jonathan Tripathy wrote I guess another way to do this would be to have the "front end smtp-out" server do the sending itself and ask a customer's respective dovecot server for authentication. How can I do this where on a domain-by-domain ba

Re: Network Ideas

Am 11.01.2011 11:30, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: Am 10.01.2011 23:21, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: Hi Everyone, Not really an issue directly related to postfix, however I'm sure I can get some goods ideas here. I wish to host managed email servers for some customers. Each customer will

Re: Network Ideas

On 1/10/11 5:21 PM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: Hi Everyone, Not really an issue directly related to postfix, however I'm sure I can get some goods ideas here. I wish to host managed email servers for some customers. Each customer will have their own email server which will be an all-i

Re: Network Ideas

Am 10.01.2011 23:21, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: Hi Everyone, Not really an issue directly related to postfix, however I'm sure I can get some goods ideas here. I wish to host managed email servers for some customers. Each customer will have their own email server which will be an all-i

Network Ideas

Hi Everyone, Not really an issue directly related to postfix, however I'm sure I can get some goods ideas here. I wish to host managed email servers for some customers. Each customer will have their own email server which will be an all-in-one virtual machine running postfix, dovecot and som

Re: MYSql Issues

On 11/12/10 19:19, John Adams wrote: Am 11.12.2010 19:18, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy: Hi Everyone, This is maybe a little off-topic, but is anyone having any problems with their mysql servers today? I have 3 separate mysql servers (running in 3 different VMs). One of them is used to do my

Re: MYSql Issues

On 11/12/10 18:56, Jeroen Geilman wrote: On 12/11/10 7:18 PM, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: Hi Everyone, This is maybe a little off-topic, but is anyone having any problems with their mysql servers today? That is an odd - and disturbingly non-technical - assertion, that the date has anything

MYSql Issues

Hi Everyone, This is maybe a little off-topic, but is anyone having any problems with their mysql servers today? I have 3 separate mysql servers (running in 3 different VMs). One of them is used to do my Postfix SASL authentication. Auth is failing today (possibly timing out). Also, the 2 oth

Re: Is there a limit on incoming messages on a single connection?

On 13/11/10 08:53, mouss wrote: Le 12/11/2010 20:03, Victor Duchovni a écrit : On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0800, Rob Tanner wrote: Our admissions office sends out mass mailings to prospective students, anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 at a time. They are mail-merged and sent via outlo

Re: Postfix on Cloud

On 08/08/10 01:33, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 8/7/2010 4:03 PM: I guess my question is a little more general than this topic: do providers ever block *who* mail is sent to? You probably need to be much more specific, detailed, with this question. For

Re: Postfix on Cloud

On 07/08/10 21:47, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: * Jonathan Tripathy: On 07/08/10 21:10, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: * Stan Hoeppner: Julio Cesar Covolato put forth on 8/7/2010 12:37 AM: Is there anyone using postfix in cloud, like Amazon ec2? Dunno

Re: Postfix on Cloud

On 07/08/10 21:10, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: * Stan Hoeppner: Julio Cesar Covolato put forth on 8/7/2010 12:37 AM: Is there anyone using postfix in cloud, like Amazon ec2? Dunno about Postfix specifically, but there are/were many spammers operating out of the Amazon cloud

Re: Thanks to wietse and the distribution list a new web console is born

Thanks! Perhaps you would consider linking to them on your web site ? I may have been overly harsh, Yes, you were :) Open Source software is, a lot of the time, provided out of the good of peoples' hearts. You should be thankful that someone has gone to the effort to code something, and r

Re: Thanks to wietse and the distribution list a new web console is born

On 07/08/10 15:08, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: I'm amazed that *source*forge allowed you to host this. Please, shoot me down if I am wrong - I am no expert on Open Source licensing, but attribution is NOT optional. You are wrong. Provided that the license is GPL, LGPL or BSA based,

Re: Thanks to wietse and the distribution list a new web console is born

I'm amazed that *source*forge allowed you to host this. Please, shoot me down if I am wrong - I am no expert on Open Source licensing, but attribution is NOT optional. You are wrong. Provided that the license is GPL, LGPL or BSA based, then no permission is needed. Please give the guy a

Re: Postfix on Cloud

On 07/08/10 10:15, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Julio Cesar Covolato put forth on 8/7/2010 12:37 AM: Is there anyone using postfix in cloud, like Amazon ec2? Dunno about Postfix specifically, but there are/were many spammers operating out of the Amazon cloud as well as the Rackspace cloud.

Re: Providing SMTP relay access to roaming laptop without creating an open relay...

On 01/08/10 18:56, Wietse Venema wrote: and perhaps TLS encryption (to protect the login Do not underestimate the importance of enabling TLS :)

Re: Mixed Setup

On 22/07/10 21:32, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: * Michael Orlitzky: I'll repeat myself. .local is not a reserved suffix. nor is .localdomain, despite what linuxers seem to believe. using such domains is a hijack. you are telling the IETF: we decided to use these suffixes and you cannot use them

Re: OT: ISP Blocking of port 25

Why should home users get business class services at a fraction of the cost? It is quite ignorant to think that. Allowing legal data to pass without being monitored, snooped upon, or blocked due to the "type" of traffic, is not just for business class services. Are you upset that you live in

Re: OT: ISP Blocking of port 25

On 21/07/10 20:06, Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote: - Original Message From: Ansgar Wiechers To: postfix-users@postfix.org Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 12:51:34 PM Subject: Re: OT: ISP Blocking of port 25 On 2010-07-21 Charles Marcus wrote: [ lots of words ] Charles, any ISP who restri

RE: Is such an SSL attack possible against Postfix?

> I beg to disagree. Blocking port 25 is a violation of Net Neutrality. Ridiculous, net neutrality has nothing to do with service level agreements. Residential service does not in any way, shape or form equate to requiring full SMTP services to be able to run your own full blown mail server, nor

RE: Is such an SSL attack possible against Postfix?

Jonathan Tripathy wrote: >> Port 25 outgoing will be blocked by most ISPs > This may be the case in your country, but from where I'm from, I've > never had a problem sending out on port 25, even on home residental > ISPs :) Any ISP that does *not* block port 25 for resi

RE: Is such an SSL attack possible against Postfix?

Port 25 outgoing will be blocked by most ISPs --- This may be the case in your country, but from where I'm from, I've never had a problem sending out on port 25, even on home resid

Re: Best Practise

I am not a Xen expert, but AFAICT, you can configure iptables in the VM and in the host. note that I am not saying you should do that. it really depends on your setup. if you can script the work to implement "centralized" admin, then it may be worth the pain. Yeah, I'm using to scripting ip

Re: Mixed Setup

Can you please explain why I would need to use smtp_generic_maps? I'm not entirely sure of the use of it in this context. you only need that if your exchange is configured to receive mail for j...@example.com and not for j...@exchange.example.com. if you configure exchange to accept ma

Re: Best Practise

If using BSD or Linux, you can also enable the "local" packet filter (pf under BSD, netfilter/iptables under Linux) to only allow explicitely authorized traffic. if you are familiar with these tools, then you don't even need a firewall (pf and netfilter/iptables are firewalls, so you get a self

Re: Mixed Setup

My current train on through is this: Have all incoming email terminate on the Linux (Postfix) box. For users who have their account on the Linux box itself, this will automatically work. For users who have their account on the exchange server, I can use Postfix Virtual Aliases to "forward" the m

Re: Mixed Setup

On 19/07/10 22:18, Simone Caruso wrote: Il 19/07/2010 22:56, Jonathan Tripathy ha scritto: Hi Everyone, My question isn't directly a Postfix issue, however postfix will be a fundamental element, and any advice would be appreciated. I need to set up an infrastructure which uses a mixtu

Mixed Setup

Hi Everyone, My question isn't directly a Postfix issue, however postfix will be a fundamental element, and any advice would be appreciated. I need to set up an infrastructure which uses a mixture of Linux, and Windows (exchange server). Basically, for a single domain, I wish got some users

Re: Best Practise

On 19/07/10 18:07, Angelo Amoruso wrote: On 16/07/2010 10.10, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: Hi Everyone, I have set up a mail server (on a VM) as per this article: http://workaround.org/ispmail/lenny I wish to host this server for a customer. However, I don't think it's "best prac

Best Practise

Hi Everyone, I have set up a mail server (on a VM) as per this article: http://workaround.org/ispmail/lenny I wish to host this server for a customer. However, I don't think it's "best practise" to simply place the whole VM in a DMZ and port forward to it. My question is, what should I do a

Multiple Users

Hi there, Does postfix support multiple users using aliases? Example: sa...@domain.com would send the mail to us...@domain.com, us...@domain.com, us...@domain.com supp...@domain.com would send the mail to us...@domain.com and us...@domain.com My aliases table an

Re: Replace Private IP by Server Hostname in mail header

|-in morocco 080200MTDS |-direct +212(0)537278820 |-mobile +212(0)661173437 |-14, rue 16 novembre |-Rabat 10080 Kingdom of Morocco On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: Hi Rachid, Ahh the good old "end user's boss" problem! Well I guess the arguments could be that since i

Re: Replace Private IP by Server Hostname in mail header

give him convincing arguments. Thank you -- |-Rachid Abdelkhalak |-Network Security Engineer, MTDS |-in morocco 080200MTDS |-direct +212(0)537278820 |-mobile +212(0)661173437 |-14, rue 16 novembre |-Rabat 10080 Kingdom of Morocco On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: Richid, Why is it a

Re: Replace Private IP by Server Hostname in mail header

Richid, Why is it a problem that people see your internal IPs? Thanks On 28/06/10 18:03, Rachid Abdelkhalak wrote: Thank you Jeroen, My need is to prvent peopel seeing my internal IPs, if i can make my server write on the header 127.0.0.1 instead instead of the 192.168.0.2 is will be great

Re: illegal address syntax

On 27/05/10 11:11, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: * Jonathan Tripathy: too many errors after... raise the soft_error_limit and/or the hard_error_limit Ah! So my postfix server has a limit then. Where can I put these settings? In main.cf ? Yes, like almost all settings

Re: illegal address syntax

too many errors after... raise the soft_error_limit and/or the hard_error_limit Ah! So my postfix server has a limit then. Where can I put these settings? In main.cf ?

Re: illegal address syntax

On 27/05/10 10:41, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: Hi Everyone, I'm currently in the middle of watching a customer's mail.log file. He is trying to send an email to a lot of people at once (Something like 5000), however the logs don't reflect this. Instead I'm seeing: May

illegal address syntax

Hi Everyone, I'm currently in the middle of watching a customer's mail.log file. He is trying to send an email to a lot of people at once (Something like 5000), however the logs don't reflect this. Instead I'm seeing: May 27 10:32:41 server1 postfix/smtpd[8144]: connect from office1.domain.l

RE: FW: PCI Compliance

It works in practice. A few Postfix TLS proxies have been terminating TLS connections, making access control decisions and forwarding unencrypted SMTP to a non-Postfix server for many years now. These systems only run "smtpd" as a proxy, and use various internal services, but otherwise there is no

FW: PCI Compliance

> Any ideas on how to set up an "SMTP Proxy Server" to attain PCI Compliance? > I literally need postfix to just pass through mail to our ISP's smtp server. > We would then set outlook to use this local smtp proxy server. I work for a hosting company, we find it's usually an iterative process. Thi

PCI Compliance

Hi Folks, Any ideas on how to set up an "SMTP Proxy Server" to attain PCI Compliance? I literally need postfix to just pass through mail to our ISP's smtp server. We would then set outlook to use this local smtp proxy server. I'm not entirly sure if a "relay" server is good here, as how would t

RE: Saving to Sent folder

On Thursday 04 March 2010 14:55:59 you wrote: > 12:24:20 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > J. Roeleveld put forth on 3/4/2010 2:12 AM: > > > On Thursday 04 March 2010 08:57:30 Jonathan Tripathy wrote: > > > > > > With that, I thought there is an option in postfix

RE: Saving to Sent folder

Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the tips. Postfix and Dovecot are indeed on the same box and I do agree with you that it would require one heck of a hack to get this to work. Since this is software, it is possible, just maybe not with the current implementation of the 2 bits of software. It would

Saving to Sent folder

Hi Folks, I'm not sure if there is a solution to this, but maybe one of you folks will know a "workaround". After thunderbird has sent the email, it then has to save the email to the sent items folders. This can take a long time if there is an attachment and the server is remote. Apart from o

RE: tls vs ssl

Here is my 2 pence (Please someone correct me if I'm wrong). STARTTLS and TLS do eventually use the TLS protocol (Which I think is just an updated version of SSL). Different being is that with STARTTLS, the SMTP client (e.g. Thunderbird) will connect to the server unencrypted, then if the smtp

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 22:17, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: [The backup MX host accepts mail from forged local sender addresses, but the backup MX does not support SASL]. Actually, the MAILER-DAEMON message doesn't get queued at all! It just discards it when it can't find th

Implementing SPF

Hi Folks, With regards to SPF breaking email fordwarding: If i implemented SPF on my server, is the above only an issue if someone were to use an external forwarding service, and forward mail to an account on my server? I'm just talking about receiving mail for now.. Thanks

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 22:03, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 21/02/2010 22:00, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 21/02/2010 21:55, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: My main issue is that my backup mx doesn't have sasl enabled (It's relay only..) Why would your users submit mail to the

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 22:00, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 21/02/2010 21:55, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: My main issue is that my backup mx doesn't have sasl enabled (It's relay only..) Why would your users submit mail to the backup MX host? Wietse You're correc

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 21:55, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: My main issue is that my backup mx doesn't have sasl enabled (It's relay only..) Why would your users submit mail to the backup MX host? Wietse You're correct, they woudn't. I just do

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 21:31, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: On 21/02/2010 21:16, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: You can also specify MULTIPLE maps: /etc/postfix:main.cf smtpd_sender_login_maps = mysql:whatever hash:/etc/postfix/default /etc/postfix/default: @example.com root

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 21:16, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: You can also specify MULTIPLE maps: /etc/postfix:main.cf smtpd_sender_login_maps = mysql:whatever hash:/etc/postfix/default /etc/postfix/default: @example.com root Don't forget to postmap the /etc/postfix/de

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 20:57, Wietse Venema wrote: Wietse Venema: Jonathan Tripathy: You forgot to set an owner rule for @domain. How would I do that? I'm not sure if this is relavent but I'm currently using: For complete description of a) the smtpd_sender_

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

You forgot to set an owner rule for @domain. Wietse How would I do that? I'm not sure if this is relavent but I'm currently using: smtpd_sender_login_maps=mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_login_maps.cf and mysql_login_maps.cf is: hosts = 127.0.0.1 user = password = dbname = mailser

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 19:39, LuKreme wrote: On 21-Feb-2010, at 12:22, Sahil Tandon wrote: Sorry I forgot to state that im only concerned with MY server here. For example, I don't want someone to telnet to MY postfix server, and give m...@mydomain.com for both sender and receiver What's the matter wi

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 19:34, Darren Pilgrim wrote: Jonathan Tripathy wrote: Sorry I forgot to state that im only concerned with MY server here. For example, I don't want someone to telnet to MY postfix server, and give m...@mydomain.com for both sender and receiver Require authentication, s

Re: Banned spoofed address from my domain

On 21/02/2010 19:05, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: Hi Folks, To prevent spammers sending email from spoofed addressed that appear from my domain, I currently use SPF. I'm having second thoughts about using SPF, so is there any other way to make sure that only authenti

Banned spoofed address from my domain

Hi Folks, To prevent spammers sending email from spoofed addressed that appear from my domain, I currently use SPF. I'm having second thoughts about using SPF, so is there any other way to make sure that only authenticated users can send email from my domain? Thanks

Re: SPF SRS sender re-writing

On 21/02/2010 16:45, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: Thanks for the reply. Are you aware of any Postfix implementations? Postfix implements SPF SRS DKIM DomainKeys SenderID BATV and so on exclusively via plugins. Just like Postfix implements deep content inspection. I

Re: SPF SRS sender re-writing

Thanks for the reply. Are you aware of any Postfix implementations? On 21/02/2010 14:33, Wietse Venema wrote: Jonathan Tripathy: Hi Folks, As many of you will probably know, SPF breaks forwarding using aliases. The solution is to re-write the from-evenlope when forwarding email. Does

SPF SRS sender re-writing

Hi Folks, As many of you will probably know, SPF breaks forwarding using aliases. The solution is to re-write the from-evenlope when forwarding email. Does anyone know how to do this with postfix? Thanks Jonny

tumgreyspf issues

Hi Everyone, I'm using tumgreyspf. I need to add the following line to my main.cf to make it work: check_policy_service unix:private/tumgreyspf Some servers arn't being greylisted. For example, the following appeared in my log on the backup mx: Feb 20 19:26:09 usa1 postfix/smtpd[7951]: con

RE: SPF Issues

Issues On 17 Feb 2010, at 11:59, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: > Is it safe to put the external IP of my backup MX in mynetworks? Provided your backup MX has the same SMTP relay restrictions as the master MX you should be OK. I replicate our master config out to the secondaries but I have the mas

RE: SPF Issues

Is it safe to put the external IP of my backup MX in mynetworks? -Original Message- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on behalf of LuKreme Sent: Thu 2/11/2010 20:30 To: postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Re: SPF Issues On 11-Feb-2010, at 06:16, Jonathan Tripathy wrote: > >

RE: suppress NDRs from spoofed sender

So I'm very new to postfix, however I have a feeling that the Regex stuff can be done via some scripts. I guess that how the Python SPF checkers work... But as I said, I'm new to postfix so I could be way off target -Original Message- From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on behalf of Da

  1   2   >