Thank you for replying, Victor. I've had empty subject fields rejected for
years to avoid spam. I mean I had this very basic regexp rule set in my header
checks. It looks like I may have to remove it now and to re-configure it a bit
in combination with procmail, according to this new prefatory /
rule gets
matched first because that is the first header that is being found (from
that sender) that matches a rule, so you never got to the From header
line to test it.
On 6/8/19 11:06 PM, Webmaster wrote:
> Thank you so much for your input, Richard. Appreciate.
>
> Hmm.. Right, this is
he first header in the message that matches a rule is the one that
dominates.
The order the rules are written doesn't matter that much (unless two of
them might match the same header). It is the order the headers are in
the message (which you really can't control).
On 6/8/19 8:16 PM, We
Thank you for replying but I still do not understand it. Are you saying that I
should swap rules' places? I have already tried that before posting my quesion
but it doesn't help. The matter is that these rules work OK one by one, but
when put together the REPLACE rule is skipped wheather it come
The requsted information simply does not exit.
3. Any text.
4. No commands run, just emails are sent / received.
5. Commands typed: the word spam in the subject field. No commands from any
scripts are run.
6. No datafiles used.
Original message
Subject: Re: header checks not
On 14/03/2013 18:28, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:47:18AM +, Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
are send to
Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
are send to non-existing users, disable email relaying for that user
for half an hour, for instance.
i say
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
are send to non-existing users, disable email relaying for that user
for half an hour, for instance.
i say reject_unverified_recipient one more time
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 10:50:
When that happens, the CPanel server outputs something like:
ask cpanel for support
Domain has exceeded the max defers and failures per hour (5/5 (26%))
allowed. Message discarded.
pretty cool
Is there a way to
Hello
Is there a way in Postfix to limit email relays to non-existent users?
For example, if an email has over 25% failures in its email sending
attemps in the last hour, block that email for an hour or so.
When, say, hacked scripts are used by spammers to send mass emails, this
would help l
Hello
I currently have the following configuration on the main.cf
smtpd_sender_restrictions:
smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_
Wietse Venema wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster:
Hello
I'm currently using Postscreen to reduce the number of botspams handled
by our email server, and it's working good.
Is there any way to reduce the postscreen logging level though?
No, When someone reports a problem, the
Hello
I'm currently using Postscreen to reduce the number of botspams handled
by our email server, and it's working good.
Is there any way to reduce the postscreen logging level though?
I feel that the information it logs is great while debugging, but once
the server is in prodution it make th
Benny Pedersen escreveu:
Den 2012-06-04 15:51, Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev:
I'm using Courier-IMAP, not Dovecot. What do you mean by sources? :/
then make an perl policyd that checks imap protocol and reports back
to policy protocol in postfix, no scripting is needed
Okay, but how
Benny Pedersen escreveu:
Den 2012-06-04 15:23, Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev:
I'm getting kind of desperate so i'm probably going to do something
very hacky like running a routine every 10 minutes or so that does the
following:
desperate ?, but where is the sources ? :=)
with d
Hello
This has been a nut that i haven't been able to crack for a long time
now and i was wondering how one would solve this problem.
My setup is the following:
a) Multiple domains hosted in a single box
b) Postfix delivers emails to virtual mailboxes (so all the domains run
under the same vi
Frank Bonnet escreveu:
I experienced this last week ;
I changed the server that send to hotmail, live etc using transport
as the new server is not on the same subnet than the preceding
it seems to work ;-)
Le 31/05/2012 21:27, ml a écrit :
Le jeudi 31 mai 2012 à 13:37 -0500, kazabe a éc
Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/31/2012 8:43 AM, webmas...@elaconta.com wrote:
I previously had hotmail.com assigned to a slow transport to only
send one email to hotmail every five minutes in order not to tax
Microsoft's poor email servers:
hotmail.com slow:
Now i'm wondering, is there any way
Em 2012-05-31 14:22, webmas...@elaconta.com escreveu:
Em 2012-05-31 14:17, /dev/rob0 escreveu:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:22PM +0100,
webmas...@elaconta.com wrote:
Anyway, since hundreds of mailboxes in our server are unable right
to to send emails to Hotmail, we need to find some alternat
Em 2012-05-31 14:17, /dev/rob0 escreveu:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:22PM +0100,
webmas...@elaconta.com wrote:
Anyway, since hundreds of mailboxes in our server are unable right
to to send emails to Hotmail, we need to find some alternative.
Relaying emails with an @hotmail.com destination t
Hello
We've been having huge problems delivering email to hotmail addresses
(Hotmail is blocking all our emails since yesterday without any
plausible reason). Microsoft's phone support is non-existant and they
don't reply to any of our emails, even those sent from Hotmail
addresses. Filled in
On 06/22/2010 10:56 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jason Bailey, Sun Advocate Webmaster put forth on 6/22/2010 10:32 PM:
(Note: I do have to disclose one piece of information. Recently our
server was automatically blacklisted by our ISP for spam that was being
relayed through our system from a
Hello all,
This question has probably been asked before in some form or another,
but I can't seem to find a post that is exactly like the issue I'm
struggling with (maybe I'm just blind). In any event, I hope that at
least one of you might be able to help me.
I've got two SLES 11 mail server
Quoting Noel Jones :
On 4/22/2010 6:19 PM, webmas...@aus-city.com wrote:
Seems its plesk and not logging everything in the logs. It uses its own
logging for mail, I could not find my successful login (below). The
saslauthd is not running, but plesk must start use another process to do
this, bu
Quoting Noel Jones :
On 4/22/2010 8:00 AM, webmas...@aus-city.com wrote:
Quoting Noel Jones :
On 4/22/2010 12:10 AM, David Cottle wrote:
I tried running
testsaslauthd -u usermailname -p matchingpass -s smtp
I get
connect () : No such file or directory
You need to debug your sasl insta
Quoting Noel Jones :
On 4/22/2010 7:59 AM, webmas...@aus-city.com wrote:
Sorry its got all truncated. Where exactly do I need to add that in
here? (I added a extra line between each)
plesk_virtual unix - n n - - pipe flags=DORhu user=popuser:popuser
argv=/usr/lib/plesk-9.0/postfix-local -f ${
Quoting Noel Jones :
On 4/22/2010 12:10 AM, David Cottle wrote:
I tried running
testsaslauthd -u usermailname -p matchingpass -s smtp
I get
connect () : No such file or directory
You need to debug your sasl installation.
-- Noel Jones
Hi Noel,
Any idea where to start as this is pr
Quoting Noel Jones :
On 4/21/2010 10:15 PM, David Cottle wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 22/04/2010, at 12:00, Noel Jones wrote:
On 4/21/2010 6:35 PM, David Cottle wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am having some issues with my server blocking ISP IP addresses.
I kno
Quoting Matt Hayes :
n 04/21/2010 07:35 PM, David Cottle wrote:
#submission inet n - n - - smtpd
# -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
# -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
# -o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject
# -o milter_macro_daemon_name
Rob Brandt wrote:
I'm trying to set up a basic header check to get rid of emails sa marks
as spam. I've added the following link to main.cf:
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/filter
/etc/postfix/filter has:
# No ***SPAM***
/^Subject .*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*/DISCARD ***SPAM***
# SPam flag
/^
Greetings,
I need to configure my system to send vacation messages on a per-user
basis. My system is configured as follows:
Operating System: Linux 2.6.25.14-108.fc9.i686 #1 SMP Mon Aug 4 14:08:11
EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Postfix: postfix-2.5.5-1.fc9.i386
Procmail: procmail-3.22-21.
Hello all,
I have postfix working pretty well... efficiently blocking a very large
amount of spam (very happy with Postfix). But I have a problem...
Postfix isn't receiving mail from a specific mail system, and it's
critical that it does.
The problem really isn't Postfix. Postfix is doing exactly
Greetings,
I am installing a Postfix Server, and I am having trouble setting up a
spam filter with Spamassassin.
I installed Postfix and it is working fine using virtual domains (I
followed these instructions:
http://www.howtoforge.com/linux_postfix_virtual_hosting). I also
installed Spamas
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, webmas...@aus-city.com wrote:
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anyt
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anything that
is ok in the file simply should 'brute force' past the rest of the
c
Quoting Sahil Tandon :
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, David Cottle wrote:
Yes all the files (whitelist, check_backscatterer and
check_spamcannibal) have been postmap.
I assume that as long as the whitelist is done first, anything that
is ok in the file simply should 'brute force' past the rest of the
c
Quoting Noel Jones :
David Cottle wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Noel,
Yes please! But can you tell me how to do this... I really don't
want to bounce the spam at all. I am using postfix 2.6, I built the
rpm from source.
Many thanks!,
David
Here is my main.cf (ab
Hi,
I keep getting these errors in /var/log/messages and can't work out why..
Dec 31 10:07:59 server kernel: postfix-queue[1323]: segfault at
2068616e ip 08049f09 sp bfc13920 error 4 in postfix-queue[8047000+e000]
Dec 31 10:12:01 server kernel: postfix-queue[1559]: segfault at
2068616e ip 08
38 matches
Mail list logo
