In message <45yvhv3ysmzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
Wietse Venema wrote:
>According to 'man 8 local', section 'EXTERNAL COMMAND DELIVERY':
> The local(8) daemon prepends a "From sender time_stamp" envelope header
> to each message, prepends an X-Original-To: header with the recipien
In message <20190626201325.gj84...@straasha.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:39:02PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> When Postfix hands a message to something... say a script invoked via
>> some ~/.forward file... which one of the
Apparently, and much to my surprise, there is more than one mbox format.
I just now stumbled across this, because I am going to be (re-)writing
some small tools I have that do useful things with mail messages stored
in "mbox format":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbox
In the above Wikipedia
In message <86defb20-c153-63ee-d8ef-097e62444...@whyscream.net>,
Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>You can add TLS verification to your postfix client in the cloud. The
>client will only deliver to a server when it presents a specific SSL
>certificate to the client during the handshake. See
>http://www.pos
In message <64994169-2c87-4029-9c31-0765608f4...@opendmz.com>,
Christopher van de Sande wrote:
>Yes absolutely correct
>
>If your sever at home is online then it will pass through your cloud VM in
>mere seconds If your home server is offline then it will continue trying
>to deliver at interva
In message <7ab4d739-2ca7-4d75-9520-e0d455dbd...@opendmz.com>,
Christopher van de Sande wrote:
>Don't forget since you're essentially sending the email from one of your
>servers to another you can use any port you want on your home side inbound
>25 blocked? No prob use 10025 on your transport_
(hang onto)
>your message(s) until your home server becomes available again, and as
>soon as it's back it will deliver the messages it held.
>
>On 10/06/2019 00:21, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> If so, then there simply will be *no* separate instance of Postfix running
>
In message <40a97779-669c-e145-e3ec-fc82c9290...@pccc.com>,
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>On 6/9/2019 6:18 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> One part that I'm sure that I -do not- understand is why you suggeted an
>> alternative port number. Can you expla
In message <14936220-5b2f-e44a-2f3a-5301e4153...@opendmz.com>,
cvandesa...@opendmz.com wrote:
>$ cat /etc/postfix/transport_maps
># Mail to anyone at opendmz.com is sent via SMTP to haproxy
>opendmz.com smtp:haproxy:10025
>
>The haproxy is an unnecessary layer of complication I added, but it
>c
In message <45mwkn2svqzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
Wietse wrote:
>> Please clarify what I am missing if anything?
>
>I understand that Ron wants to run Postfix on a static IP addres
>in the cloud, but he does not want to store his email there, so
>that rules out IMAP.
Yes. Exactly.
The more I
In message <45mwd36lhvzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
Wietse Venema wrote:
>> What about setting up a tunnel between home (dynamic IP) and cloud
>> (static IP)? Could be a VPN, or SSH.
>
>Plus a transport_maps setting on the cloud side that routes mail
>into the tunnel.
Wait WHAT???
Just whe
In message <45mw9x6zlnzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
Wietse Venema wrote:
>> and then use something like fetchmail to poll that periodically to pull
>> down all mail for my several domains and then have fetchmail re-inject
>> all of those mail messages into the local Postfix. The plan would be t
In message <36fd5ad1-7757-6e52-0640-0dce1ce3d...@opendmz.com>,
cvandesa...@opendmz.com wrote:
>Maybe something like I'm doing?
>
>I have 3 instances of postfix running (because I travel) but this can
>work with 2.
>1 server in the cloud, 2 locally one home one office.
>
>The 2 local postfix ins
In message <0100016b3e41b455-b95a3601-7822-4541-823a-6230f277bf1b-00@email.
amazonses.com>, Antonio Leding wrote:
>Security:
>
>With some VMs, you will have complete root-level rights on
>the server and can do what you wish in terms of server security.
Yes. Quite. And believe me, I would
In message <8154118f-d266-aec3-4a6d-fb9e59af3...@pccc.com>,
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>Well, first, my firm's commercial Raptor anti-pam solution supports
>smarthosting for outbound and inbound on an alternate port. Add any
>dynamic DNS solution and you are good to go. Plus you get the best
>b
In message <0100016b3e069855-f95cf3e2-9649-4a55-8290-24a9d44f80cc-00@email.
amazonses.com>, Antonio Leding wrote:
>Just curious any reason to not use use the could-based Postfix
>server + something like Dovecot and then have your clients access that
>directly? I have this now for at least
I'd very much like to move my (Postfix) mail server, which currently resides
on a (static IP) end-luser broadband line, to some VM in the cloud someplace,
and then use something like fetchmail to poll that periodically to pull
down all mail for my several domains and then have fetchmail re-inject
In message <20190303184645.gl...@straasha.imrryr.org>, Viktor wrote:
>I could also point out that TCP stacks can allow the same local
>ephemeral port to be used for multiple TCP connections, provided
>the 4-tuple (remote ip, remote port, local ip, local port) is unique.
>There is no requirement
In message <44c5tp4v0yzj...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Postfix is in a different league than software that just runs the
>system into the ground under load, and that requires a babysitter
>to become unstuck.
Thanks for the clarification and the clarity.
You wouldn't happen to have the n
In message <41848ab9-339a-41a8-9a20-b1533eb77...@dukhovni.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>>
>> But this other fellow I've been taking to offered an unexpectedobservation:
>> If a given Postfix
I got into a somehwat interesting discussion/argument with a fellow today
about how many different domains could reasonably be supported on a single
IPv4 address, generally speaking.
I pointed out that there's essentially no limits on how many different
domains a single instance of Apache, runn
In message <5437738e.70...@b1-systems.de>,
Lothar Gesslein wrote:
>This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
>--S3jn7wKsBSncUVQTga7T8Np436be1Lonq
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>On 10/09
In message <20141010030256.gw13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> What happens if in fact the matching rules specified in the access(5)
>> man page resulted in matching _mult
In message <3jdmll1j7pzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> I'm asking you to explain your documentation, and specifically why
>> you have a different understanding of the word "use" that the vast
In message <3jdlhr1bzjzj...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> OK, I'm reading (and re-reading, and re-re-reading) the statement in
>> question, which appears in the SMTPD_POLICY_README, and I'm sorry to
>> say that I still
In message <20141009172354.gu13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>Spawn launches a new {policy} process for each new {SMTP} connection.
Thank you! I most certainly did not grasp that until just this moment.
>A policy server connection never outlives the smtpd(8) process that
In message <3jdjvm2k00zj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> Somewhere burried in the documentation I vaguely remember seeing a
>> comment to the effect that Postfix will only ask a policy server to
>> handle 1
In message <20141009163728.gt13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:29:41AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> In message <32139_1412843719_543648C7_32139_3580_1_543648C6.9050308@external
>.th
>> alesgroup.com>
In message <20141009152227.gq13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:17:45PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> As I understand it, a Postfix policy server is supposed to be reading
>> incoming requests from stdin.
>
&
In message <20141009141819.go13...@mournblade.imrryr.org>,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> Thank you very much! I believe that will solve the multiple evaluation
>> problem for me. And I guess that ex
In message <32139_1412843719_543648c7_32139_3580_1_543648c6.9050...@external.th
alesgroup.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Emmanuel_Fust=E9?=
wrote:
>Le 09/10/2014 07:43, Ronald F. Guilmette a =E9crit :
>
>Do you tried multiple PREPEND result for the same pattern in an access
>table (o
In message <3jd99m4nwtzj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
>> PREPEND result that can be returned from policy servers
>> and/o
In message <54361549.5050...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>On 10/8/2014 8:17 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> The SMTPD_POLICY_README file says:
>>
>> "In case of trouble the policy server must not send a reply. Instead the ser
>ver
>> must l
This is a request for a very minor change to the semantics of the
PREPEND result that can be returned from policy servers
and/or from specific entries within an access(5) lookup table.
It would be maximally convenient if the subject could be
interpolated in the following trivial way:
Any
In message <543614e5.6060...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>On 10/8/2014 8:11 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> That delay, in and of itself is not really a problem for me. What
>> _is_ a bit of a problem is the fact that smtpd_delay_reject doesn't
>> me
The SMTPD_POLICY_README file says:
"In case of trouble the policy server must not send a reply. Instead the server
must log a warning and disconnect. Postfix will retry the request at some later
time."
Ummm...
I can easly handle the "log a warning" part, but...
As I understand it, a Postfix p
I posted these questions recently, but either nobody saw my posting
or else nobody thought that these questions wre worth of a reply.
On the chance that it was the former, I am posting these questions
again... because I still do need answers.
=
In message <54306a5d.5040...@rhsoft.net>,
"li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>punnycode until 2.12 is out next year and honestly nobody irght in his
>mind is using unicode as it is for domains right now - at least not if
>he is interested in communicate with the rest of the world :-)
>
>http://www.devh
In message <54305f77.9000...@rhsoft.net>,
"li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>
>Am 04.10.2014 um 22:49 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> These days, whenever one builds any kind of tool that does
>> anything with e-mail, it is necessary to think about this
>> new
These days, whenever one builds any kind of tool that does
anything with e-mail, it is necessary to think about this
new-fangled phenomenon of Internationalized Domain Names,
so...
In what (if any) mail headers generated by Postfix might one
reasonably expect to find either (a) "punycoded" domain
If I make a change to my policy server and reinstall it, and if I
then execute the command "postfix reload", do the existing running
instances of the -old- policy server continue running?
(The postfix man page says that "reload" causes "running processes"...
whichout specifiying which ones... to
I'm building a new policy server, and I have some questions about
the protocol.
<>
"Tagging" of incoming messages... so that they may be specially
handled by post-delivery tools (e.g. procmail and others) is a useful
feature. And I hope to make use of "action=PREPEND " responses
in my policy ser
In message <3j7vdm3rglzb...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Wietse:
>There is no supported API for {DNS} retry/timeout settings as far as I
>can tell. Whacking bits in the __res structure does not count.
>
>Maybe it can be set with environment variables, but that
>may require support to do:
>
In message
Paul C wrote:
>Postfix doesn't have any type of automatic detection of any
>malfunctioning blacklists, it may be configurable on how long to wait
>for a response, I'm not sure on that, but no dynamic changing of what
>is being used, if you think that one though, postfix shouldn't do
In message <3j7sdd1mnszb...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
>> "li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>>
>> >Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb R
In message <542c35a7.3050...@rhsoft.net>,
"li...@rhsoft.net" wrote:
>Am 01.10.2014 um 19:04 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> What would happen in such a case? Would inbound e-mail start to
>> back up horribly, as Postfix waited for DNS responses that were
>&g
I have been thinking of maybe putting up an experimental
anti-spam blocklist server. As far as the client interface,
this would operate in the usual way, i.e. via DNS, just as
all of the current well-known blacklists do.
Due to the (backend) nature of the thing however, it would
probably only pr
In message
Evan Platt wrote:
>rhdyes, Your account has been comprmised. Change your password ASAP. TO all
>others, do not click that link.
Why not?
I already clicked it, and my computer is now runn,~~~9*&3qx#~..
<>
In message <3hfkyf2ty9zj...@spike.porcupine.org>,
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>> Either way, an automated whitelisting thing would be useful...
>>
>> ... but only if it works with Postfix.
>
>Amavisd has a pen pals feature that should work with smtpd_proxy_filter.
>This requires
In message <20140821215806.gx23...@harrier.slackbuilds.org>,
/dev/rob0 wrote:
>I wouldn't recommend this, because many spam zombies access the
>sender/victim's MUA settings, and they spew to addresses in the
>address book, AS the sender/victim. But I'm sure you know this.
I do, and I do not
In message <53f664fe.1030...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>amavisd-new has a "penpals" feature that integrates nicely with
>postfix as a pre-queue smtpd_proxy_filter, or a post-queue
>content_filter. I don't use this particular feature, but amavisd-new
>is solid software.
>http://www.ijs
Is there anything which is either a part of, or that works
with Postfix that is capable of automagically maintaining
a personal whitelist of specific e-mail addresses, to which
a given user has previously sent outbound e-mail?
To be clear, although I have the local Postfix configured to
use many
[[ My apologies to all if you see this message twice, or even three times.
Various and multiple snaufs on my end are to blame, and I'm sorry. ]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As I was reading again, just now, through the various online documents
and man pages relating to filtering, I realized tha
I really should have figured this out ages ago, but...
Quite simply, there exits a small number of organizations that
run afoul of my various smtpd_recipient_restrictions and/or my
smtpd_helo_restrictions, but from which I need to be able to
receive mail anyway. (A small number of companies get
In message <520023b2.1070...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>On 8/5/2013 4:16 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>>> I see zero value in testing to see if the HELO IP is forged, since
>>> using any IP seems to be a very strong spambot indicator.
>>
>
In message <51fff9c5.9070...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>No. Here, near-zero legit clients use bracketed HELO. Looks as if
>I've whitelisted 2 clients in the last ~5 years (I see one of them
>has fixed their HELO sometime since then). That's close enough to
>zero for me.
I agree.
>M
In message <51ff9e18.9050...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>I use a pcre table to reject any HELO that starts with a bracket or
>looks like an IP. Legit hosts that use this form are very rare here
>-- maybe one every couple years.
>...
>There is no built-in postfix restriction to compare
In message <51ff2ad2.2080...@hardwarefreak.com>,
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>BTW, if you want to maximize potential hits on RHSBLs just short of
>doing body checks, you may want to give Sahil Tandon's TCP server based
>RHSBL header checker a spin. It grabs domains from headers and checks
>them again
In message <51ff2563.1070...@hardwarefreak.com>,
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> If not maybe a new restriction
>> verb would be useful to perform this exact check.
>
>Maybe you should explain why you're having a problem rejecting spamware
>that HELO's with an IP literal.
Did I say I was having a prob
In message <51ff1bba.9000...@hardwarefreak.com>,
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Doing RBL client checks in postscreen?
>
>That would be one cause.
As I mentioned, I am not using postscreen at the present time.
>Another could be having duplicate
>reject_rbl_client statements in smtpd_client_restricti
In message <51ff13eb.8090...@megan.vbhcs.org>,
Noel Jones wrote:
>On 8/4/2013 8:06 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> Does reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname, when placed in the
>> smtpd_helo_restrictions, permit clients to HELO/EHLO
>> with a square-bracket enclosed dotte
Does reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname, when placed in the
smtpd_helo_restrictions, permit clients to HELO/EHLO
with a square-bracket enclosed dotted quad IPv4 address?
If so, is the dotted quad checked to see that it properly
represents the actual IP address of the actual current client?
Also, I h
I've just updated from 2.8.5 to 2.9.1 and now, when I start postfix,
I am getting the following set of messages (that I've never seen before):
/usr/local/sbin/postconf: warning: /usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf: unused
parameter: policy_time_limit=600
/usr/local/sbin/postconf: warning: /usr/loca
In message <3qv24m4z8pzh...@spike.porcupine.org>,
Wietse Venema wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> Nothing is said within SMTPD_POLICY_README about what happens to any
>> output produced by a policy daemon on its stderr channel.
>
>Nothing happens with output
Nothing is said within SMTPD_POLICY_README about what happens to any
output produced by a policy daemon on its stderr channel.
Is such output captured? Is it sent to the the same place as other
smtpd log message are currently sent?
If so, that would be most helpful.
In message <3qpvhy2tqszh...@spike.porcupine.org>, Wietse wrote:
>> It sounds to me like you are saying that...
>>
>>:= |
>> ( [,])* []
>
>No, I wrote:
>
>One line NOT starting with REJECT or PREPEND etc., containing OTHER
>ACTIONS (note plural) than REJECT or PREPEND etc.
In message <3qpbvm2dkczh...@spike.porcupine.org>,
Wietse Venema wrote:
>> If I have understood you correctly, you have said that for every kind/type
>> of ACTION specification listed in access(5) _other_ than REJECT & PREPEND
>> it is possible to combine that ACTION specification (and its assso
In message <20110606215604.gu8...@np305c2n2.ms.com>, Viktor wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 02:46:46PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, I'm still not clear on any of this. You said "With actions
>> that are equivalent to DUNNO...".
In message <3qp73y409zzh...@spike.porcupine.org>, you wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> In the access(5) man page, it is either explicitly stated or else
>> easily inferred what XXX response value will be sent back to the
>> SMTP client for each of the pos
In message <20110606203126.go8...@np305c2n2.ms.com>, you wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:16:07PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>>
>> In the access(5) man page, it is either explicitly stated or else
>> easily inferred what XXX response value will be sent
In the access(5) man page, it is either explicitly stated or else
easily inferred what XXX response value will be sent back to the
SMTP client for each of the possible values listed in the ACCEPT
ACTIONS and REJECT ACTIONS sections.
What XXX response values will be sent back to the SMTP client fo
Other than the Spamhaus DWL, is anyone here aware of any publically-queryable
domain-based whitelists?
If so, I'd like to know their names and, wheer applicable, web URLs for any
pages that describe them.
Thanks.
Regards,
rfg
In message <20101107091813.21bf5104...@camomile.cloud9.net>,
mouss wrote:
>> Does anyone have an already-developed policd, either available as
>> freeware or for sale that implements the above (rate limits& quotas)?
>
>Well, Stan meant an implementation, not a general concept :)
> http://w
In message ,
Will Fong wrote:
>On Nov 6, 2010, at 3:14 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
>> be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
>> regarding the spam outflow
In message ,
Michael J Wise wrote:
>>I believe you can set per user rate limits using policyd.
>
>Problem is, they don't.
>The mailbox is on THEIR system.
>And however much we beg, plead or whine, some of our customers don't
>share their complete user list with us.
Michael,
I'm really not sur
In message <4cd55507.4090...@hardwarefreak.com>,
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>...
>2. Policyd
> - per user rate limiting
> - per user send quota
I am really quite interested in finding out if there is any pre-canned
stuff available to implement the above.
Does anyone have an already-dev
Hello again friends. Long time no see.
I've gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion... which seems to
be the only kind I get into these days... on another mailing list
regarding the spam outflow filtering capabilities of one particular
non-Posfix based e-mail service.
For the sake of c
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jan P. Kessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Noel Jones schrieb:
>> Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>> It's easy enough to just pass a copy of $mynetworks to an external
>>> policy
>>> server, e.g. via
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> Postfix doesn't actually
>> have the specific bit of information I want/need in my policy server
>> (despite the fact that I had really hoped that it did) a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>> I mean isn't Postfix making this determination (relay authorized
>> / unauthorized) internally itself already anyway?
>
>No, the determination is made in smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
I won't quibble senamtics. _Someth
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Instead of inbound/outbound, Postfix uses the concept of mail relay
>authorization in the SMTP server.
Yes. Thank you for clarifying. You're correct that this is really
what I want my policy server to tailor its behavio
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wietse wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> client_in_my_networks=[yes/no]
>
>That might work (under a better name) but it should not encourage
>requests to simply dump all the low-level Postfix predicates in
>the policy protocol:
Well,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
>> I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
>>
>>
I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
Basically, I think it would be very useful if the protcol included a
line like:
trusted_client=[yes/no]
where the value would be set to "yes" if and only if
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree that false positives are bad... but hopefully you're
>rejecting mail and not discarding it. When (legit) mail is
>rejected, the sender is notified and you'll hear about it...
In a perfect world yes. Unfortunately
Pretend I'm an idiot. (For most people who know me this won't be hard.)
Could somebody please explain to me... in a way that takes into account
my idiocy... what this "strict_mime_encoding_domain" option actually does,
i.e. if you turn it on?
What exactly constitutes "invalid Content-Transfer-E
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> I was just perusing the /var/log/messages file on a system I have
>> that's currently running Postfix 2.5.1 and I saw the following messages:
>>
>> Jul 29 19:47:42 roomy postfix/s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jorey Bump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, at 07/30/2008 03:19 PM:
>> I was just perusing the /var/log/messages file on a system I have
>> that's currently running Postfix 2.5.1 and I saw the following messag
I was just perusing the /var/log/messages file on a system I have
that's currently running Postfix 2.5.1 and I saw the following messages:
Jul 29 19:47:42 roomy postfix/smtpd[72875]: gethostby*.getanswer: asked for
"ip200.208-100-19.vswitch.static.steadfast.net IN A", got type "DNAME"
Jul 29 22:
89 matches
Mail list logo
