On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 01:19:12 +0200
"Morten P.D. Stevens" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> a small question regard to the postfix message id process.
>
> Every message has a unique ID provided by the postfix messaging process.
>
> Some messages have a 11 characters message id and other a 12 characters
> me
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:46:53 +0700
Makara wrote:
> Puthick, no authentication require for sending mail out because of
> users knowledge limitation. We would like to solve the problem without
> implement smtp authentication.
use one of the pop-before-smtp packages. It's admittedly a kludge,
but
On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:32:27 +0300
Appliantologist wrote:
> I figured it's be pretty easy, say have some file like used in the
> various popauth schemes. If the IP address of the connection in not in
> the list, NO relay. It wasn't. Strict 822RFC is set and it doesn't
> stop the guy from sendin
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:38:06 -0600
The Doctor wrote:
> Out: 220 doctor.nl2k.ab.ca ESMTP Postfix (2.8-20100323)
> In: mail-iw0-f172.google.com
> Out: 402 4.5.2 Error: command not recognized
is not a valid SMTP/ESMTP command.
Are you using a Pix?
> Out: 451 4.3.0 Error: queue fi
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:22:44 -0500
Noel Jones wrote:
> No. The log entry clearly shows that
> fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au is the sender and local postfix
> is the receiver. The local postfix rejects the delivery attempt.
>
> This is almost certainly a "spoofed freemail" rule added to
> the
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:27:57 +1000 (EST)
"Voytek Eymont" wrote:
> I just noticed this in the logs, which might be from a valid sender to a
> valid user on this server:
>
> Apr 5 11:03:31 postfix/smtpd[31021]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au[203.63.86.26]: 554 5.7.1
> :
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:13:27 -0700
Terry Barnum wrote:
> Other ideas why those clients didn't get rejected before DATA?
ESMTP Pipelining?
They could very well be rejected before DATA, except, well, with pipelining
they may have already started sending the message.
(There are quite a few spam c
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:13:05 -0600
Josh Cason wrote:
> So when I type grep the original message. In this case as
> listed above. It list the server ip number as comming in with some
> outside e-mail address we don't have.
If it's coming from the server IP or localhost, you've most likely
got
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:27:29 -0400 (EDT)
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Just to clarify, this DNS server is likely to create the same
> problem with other sites that run a version of the qmail MTA.
That sounds like a feature to me.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:08:03 +1100
Adrian Overbury wrote:
> I think that there's an important step here that I always use when I'm
> doing a mail migration. It could really go anywhere above the 'wait for
> a Friday night' step, really. "Reduce the TTL on the domain to
> something quite smal
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:47:09 -0600
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.html
>
> *Definition: "non-commercial use" is use for any purpose other than as part
> or all of a product or service that is resold, or for use of which a fee is
> charged. For example, usi
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:41:13 -0600
/dev/rob0 wrote:
> Whilst the above sounds a bit like a straw-man argument condemning
> other DNSBLs (I'll get to that in a bit), it does bring up a very
> important point, which, given the OP's post in the other thread,
> needs to be emphasized.
Certain othe
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:19:31 +0100
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> Why this extra complexity?
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = <..>
> reject_rbl_client b.barracudacentral.org
Because in my case it's actually a bit different: users can optin/out
of filter sets.
(using code derived from your an
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:56:49 +0800
"Jon L Miller" wrote:
> Is there a preferred list of rbl sites one can use in postfix. I keep
> getting the following on the following:
Since others answered your error message, I'll answer the first question:
smtpd_restriction_classes = class_barracuda
clas
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:27:05 -0300
"Damian Rivas" wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have a Postfix box basically configured to send mail from my organization
> to the Internet. Today I received a warning message telling me that the mail
> queue was full.
>
> It seems that some Spammer is using m
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:42:03 +0200
Thomas Gelf wrote:
> e) we are a really small ISP, but the largest one in our region. Two
>years ago we decided to be less permissive - and we had to dedicate
>ressources to teach people what they are doing wrong. The result
> has been, that other provid
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:25:40 +1000
Barney Desmond wrote:
> I haven't done this myself, but I hear policy servers are quite
> popular for this sort of thing (the usual question is how to setup
> sending quotas for users, so this would be a slight modification).
Yes, postfixpolicyd can do this.
Th
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:40:58 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> This is known as a "Prove You Love Me" scheme and is, essentially,
> offloading your spam problems onto everyone else who sends you mail.
> You will find a LOT of people are pissed off by these PYLM emails,
> and will not reply.
Nor will si
On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:12:28 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> On 28 May 2009, at 03:56, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
>
> > Turns out Wietse was wrong:
> > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/
>
> Would it be approriate to ask what the issues are with postfix's
> license? I hate to adm
On Fri, 22 May 2009 14:37:48 -0400
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> Connection rate (rather than concurrency) limits are rather risky,
> a site with legitimate mail to send, and a lot of senders, may not be
> able to deliver any mail to you in the face of a load-spike.
Or a site running qmail, sending t
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:54:27 -0400 (EDT)
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> Um, that should be the other way around:
Though that will change 'every' sender to be that sender which may not
be correct (virtual hosts, webmail, etc).
http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.mail.php and see e
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:44:21 +1100
"Ross Tsolakidis" wrote:
> Just change the users password and slap them for clicking on the link.
> Easy.
Easy but tedious.
I had to resort to installing postfix-policyd to rate limit them.
(Make sure you have Squirrel use auth so regardless of forged-from
li
22 matches
Mail list logo
