On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/21/2014 10:34 AM, Thijssen wrote:
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>> reject_invalid_hostname,
>> reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
>> reject_unauth_pipelining,
>> permit_mynetworks,
One server I maintain receives huge amounts of spam. In my ongoing
attempts at killing as many spam-mails as possible, among others I've
been using dns blacklists under the reject_rbl_client option umbrella.
For years this worked really well, combined with clamsmtpd, plus some
header and body check
r UCEprotect though, too many
weird decisions there, and prone to false positives).
So why not do that? In addition you get an awful lot of good security
for your server.
Regards,
Julius Thijssen
OK, nobody has anything to say on this?
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Thijssen wrote:
> We decided to create a special MX for just the bulk mailings within
> our IP-block, the datacentre network we maintain. Here's where my
> questions arise:
>
> The setup is as follo
Believe me, this is everything but spam-related. It's mostly .org and
.edu/.gov kind of mailings (non-profit), but quite a lot of them at
one time. I've seen postfix moments like this quite a lot recently:
Incoming: 6991
Active: 2
Deferred: 7897
Bounced: 2319
Hold: 0
Corrupt: 0
I had to employ
Has someone already done this using header_checks?
If so, please post the example you use.
I'm getting fed up with those sneaky bastards trying to convince my
parents to click on their attachments. But still need to allow
incoming .zip attachments if they're larger than, say, 80 kbytes.
Who in the
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 15:48, Thijssen wrote:
> I just took the opportunity to educate the readers of an otherwise
> useless thread
> in this (archived) mailinglist. I was busting your chain.
Oh how much I hate google's way of handling linebreaks and ignoring
mine. What idiot
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 09:38, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 6:49 AM, Thijssen wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 00:08, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2011 00:03:26 +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/26/2011 11:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 00:08, wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 00:03:26 +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>>
>> On 05/26/2011 11:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>> can somebody please remove the idiots from LinkedIn from
>>> mailing-lists?
>>>
>>
>> s/from LinkedIn//
>
>
> go back home new guy
Wow, wha
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:28, Mark Goodge wrote:
> As a lightweight webmail client, to be used as an infrequent alternative to
> a desktop client (eg, for collecting your mail when out and about with only
> web access), Squirrelmail is perfectly adequate for most users.
I use it for huge amounts
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:43, K bharathan wrote:
> yes i've used and know it's too good; but all those for small number of
> users; i want to use it at an ISP level; at ISP level i require some addons
> like quota/autorespond etc..i'll give a try to squirrelmail
XS4ALL, the largest Dutch ISP, use
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 16:52, K bharathan wrote:
> of course this is a non postfix topic; but i'd like to know from the
> experienced which webmail is best for a postfix pop server
It mostly depends on the type of users you have;
- If they like flashy GUI bullshit like HTML-mail and WYSIWYG
form
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:27, Thijssen wrote:
>> smtpd_tls_received_header = no
> For the record;
> This doesn't work. Adding this does not make the
>
> (No client certificate requested)
>
> disappear.
Sorry, it *does* work.
I had a secondary entry of the same l
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 15:42, Noel Jones wrote:
> Easy way:
> smtpd_tls_received_header = no
> Postfix will still indicate TLS was used by presence of the ESMTPS (for TLS
> only) or ESMTPSA (for TLS+SASL) tag.
For the record;
This doesn't work. Adding this does not make the
(No client certific
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 17:36, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 09:42:08AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> > IF /^Received: .*by mail.my.domain/
> > IF /no client certificate/
> > /(.*)\(No client certificate requested\)(.*)/
> > REPLACE $1 $2
> > ENDIF
> > ENDIF
>
> This will leave
OK, I'm using SMTP with TLS, and I'd like to eliminate part of the
header it generates;
Received: from system (ip-address [1.2.3.4])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mail.some.serverdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75F61C
16 matches
Mail list logo
