Missed this one:
> message_size_limit = 52428800
> virtual_mailbox_limit = 524288
>
> message_size_limit needs to be less than or equal to
> virtual_mailbox_limit. Your virtual_mailbox_limit is
> 100 times message_size_limit.
Not intentional, definitely a typo. I think early on I saw
mailbox_
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 01:29:51PM +1100, raf wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 03:47:22PM -0600, Tyler Montney
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for taking the time to review this. I feel confident now in putting
> > it online (after I make a few of your adjustments).
One last thing, there can also be mi
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 03:47:22PM -0600, Tyler Montney
wrote:
> "You seem to be explicitly setting many parameters to their defaults."
>
> I removed a bunch, but might have missed some. That "command_directory"
> parameter I definitely didn't set. I think that's a result of building from
> so
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 03:47:22PM -0600, Tyler Montney wrote:
> In my effort to be a little less flexible (to get more encryption), it
> seems I'll do the opposite. I'll change that. Speaking of which...
>
> smtp_tls_mandatory_protocols
Applies when sending mail to destinations for which TLS is
"You seem to be explicitly setting many parameters to their defaults."
I removed a bunch, but might have missed some. That "command_directory"
parameter I definitely didn't set. I think that's a result of building from
source.
"You have the address mappings happening before, which means that the
On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 11:38:26PM -0500, Tyler Montney
wrote:
> Sorry for the long delay, wanted to do more research before posting it.
> I've replaced some real values, like myhostname, with generic ones.
I expect it's all fine or you would have had a response by now.
I'll have a look and mak
Sorry for the long delay, wanted to do more research before posting it.
I've replaced some real values, like myhostname, with generic ones.
postconf -nf
command_directory = /usr/sbin
compatibility_level = 3.6
content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
daemon_directory = /usr/libexec/postfix
d
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:20:55PM -0500, Tyler Montney
wrote:
> One other thing while I wait...
>
> Once I'm done researching (in a week or two), I'd like someone to provide a
> sanity check on my Postfix config by posting it here. Is that allowed?
Sure. When you're ready, post the output of
One other thing while I wait...
Once I'm done researching (in a week or two), I'd like someone to provide a
sanity check on my Postfix config by posting it here. Is that allowed?
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:13 AM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:53:03AM -0500, Tyler Montney wro
I'll give that book a try and return to this thread with any remaining
questions.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 1:13 AM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:53:03AM -0500, Tyler Montney wrote:
>
> > Perfect, all of that makes sense. Here's 3 more:
>
> You might try the book by Patrick and
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:53:03AM -0500, Tyler Montney wrote:
> Perfect, all of that makes sense. Here's 3 more:
You might try the book by Patrick and Ralf, the basics haven't changed.
>- The way I understand master.cf is that it spins up services.
On demand, unless some idle instances of
Perfect, all of that makes sense. Here's 3 more:
- The way I understand master.cf is that it spins up services. For
instance, the smtp(d) service to accept incoming connections on port 25, or
qmgr that handles the various queues (like active and deferred). For other
services that wish
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:15:23AM -0500, Tyler Montney wrote:
> So by private, you mean services that end users shouldn't be able to
> interact with? Public services have CLI tools (as an interface) whereas
> private ones do not.
Yes.
> For wakeup, why would a service need wake up timer? It has
rhaps some kind of
maintenance tasks?
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 11:45 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:12:40PM -0500, Tyler Montney wrote:
>
> > I am doing a deep dive on mail hosting and this includes Postfix. I have
> > quite a number of questions about Po
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:12:40PM -0500, Tyler Montney wrote:
> I am doing a deep dive on mail hosting and this includes Postfix. I have
> quite a number of questions about Postfix. Is this the best place to get
> those answered?
>
> To give a sample:
>
>- What do
I am doing a deep dive on mail hosting and this includes Postfix. I have
quite a number of questions about Postfix. Is this the best place to get
those answered?
To give a sample:
- What does 'private' mean for master.cf? Documentation is quite scarce.
I can tell it doesn'
Nice to meet you. My name is Morikawa.
Regarding Postfix relay settings, with the following configuration
All outgoing emails must be virus checked.
I'm pointing the relay destination to a higher level virus check on the SMTP
server.
With this, mail addressed to local domain will be sent from the
> On 10 Mar 2017, at 16:02, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> You can add an override on a specific smtpd listener IP:port in
> master.cf.
>
> Something like:
>
> # master.cf
> 192.168.1.50:2525 inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o smtpd_tls_auth_only=no
Thanks Noel - I’d forgotten completely about maste
> On 10 Mar 2017, at 16:02, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> You can add an override on a specific smtpd listener IP:port in
> master.cf.
>
> Something like:
>
> # master.cf
> 192.168.1.50:2525 inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o smtpd_tls_auth_only=no
Thanks Noel - I’d forgotten completely about master
On 3/9/2017 5:23 PM, Marty Lee wrote:
> Unless anyone has any other bright ideas that would let me set options
> for smtpd_tls_auth_only on a per interface/port basis?
You can add an override on a specific smtpd listener IP:port in
master.cf.
Something like:
# master.cf
192.168.1.50:2525 inet
> On 9 Mar 2017, at 20:28, Marty Lee wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m playing with using Nginx as an IMAP and SMTP proxy for our mail servers,
> as it will help us migrate and horizontally scale. Sorted the Nginx/Cyrus
> stuff out, and can proxy IMAP sessions to multiple back end mail servers.
>
> The p
Hi,
I’m playing with using Nginx as an IMAP and SMTP proxy for our mail servers,
as it will help us migrate and horizontally scale. Sorted the Nginx/Cyrus
stuff out, and can proxy IMAP sessions to multiple back end mail servers.
The problem I'm having, is trying to use a standard mail client to s
Michael Peter:
> Hi,
>
> i have set on postfix that max process for SMTPD is 10 using master.cf
>
> So once simulations concurrent connections reached 10, Postfix started
> STRESS behaviour
>
> so the SMTPD using command stress=yes
>
> Now after the connections drooped from 10 till 5 , still po
Hi,
i have set on postfix that max process for SMTPD is 10 using master.cf
So once simulations concurrent connections reached 10, Postfix started
STRESS behaviour
so the SMTPD using command stress=yes
Now after the connections drooped from 10 till 5 , still postfix handle
new connections with s
Hello Wietse,
That’s what I was hoping to do from the get-go. :-)
But I could not figure out the proper way to do this at the time. Now, since I
have about 80 more hours worth of Postfix experience beating my head into the
wall, I was able to get this working right now. Thank you so much for
Laz C. Peterson:
> Hello Postfix community,
>
> I have a puzzling setup that I am trying to work out, maybe someone has some
> advice or idea?
>
What about:
submission service - pre/post-queue filter -\ /- outbound SMTP
-- queue --
Hello Postfix community,
I have a puzzling setup that I am trying to work out, maybe someone has some
advice or idea?
We have two Postfix servers.
- Server 1 functions as the authenticated client's outbound mail server (SMTPS
and submission), as well as the destination for our hosted domains a
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:48:46AM +0300, Michael Peter wrote:
> > There is no requirement that the addresses are the same. Look at
> > this mail for an example.
>
> How come sender email address mentioned in the postfix log file is
> different than the sender email address mentioned in the emai
> On 6/16/2015 11:53 AM, Michael Peter wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2015 10:21 AM, Michael Peter wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have question about postfix logfile (/var/log/maillog), Does The log
>>>> mention the "from email header" or th
On 6/16/2015 11:53 AM, Michael Peter wrote:
>> On 6/16/2015 10:21 AM, Michael Peter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have question about postfix logfile (/var/log/maillog), Does The log
>>> mention the "from email header" or the "return-path em
> On 6/16/2015 10:21 AM, Michael Peter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have question about postfix logfile (/var/log/maillog), Does The log
>> mention the "from email header" or the "return-path email header" in the
>> log file ?
>>
>> Ju
On 6/16/2015 10:21 AM, Michael Peter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have question about postfix logfile (/var/log/maillog), Does The log
> mention the "from email header" or the "return-path email header" in the
> log file ?
>
> Jun 16 16:17:43 mailhost postfix/qmgr
Hi,
I have question about postfix logfile (/var/log/maillog), Does The log
mention the "from email header" or the "return-path email header" in the
log file ?
Jun 16 16:17:43 mailhost postfix/qmgr[12095]: CB992123F1B1:
from=, size=2639, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Example
Serkan ?zen:
> When I redirect incoming mail that has 3 recipients to my script,
> I see that my script (it reads mail from stdin and creates file
> with the stream coming from stdin.) creates 3 files in total, one
> for each recipient. What I really want is that to create only one
> file.
In that
Thank you very much , I will try this.
Best Regards,
Ton
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:41 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Need Help about Postfix Policy
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse:
> > Open a shell as root, then execute these commands:
> > # su nobody
> > $ /usr/bin/perl /usr/libexec/postfix/greylist.pl
>
> Pratchaya Rudjanisoragun:
> > #su nobody
> > This account is currently not available.
>
> Save the script below as "su.pl" then execute:
>
> pe
Wietse:
> Open a shell as root, then execute these commands:
> # su nobody
> $ /usr/bin/perl /usr/libexec/postfix/greylist.pl
Pratchaya Rudjanisoragun:
> #su nobody
> This account is currently not available.
Save the script below as "su.pl" then execute:
perl su.pl /usr/bin/perl /usr/libexec/pos
, March 26, 2014 6:37 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Need Help about Postfix Policy with perl
Pratchaya Rudjanisoragun:
> greylist unix - n n - - spawn
> user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/perl /usr/libexec/postfix/greylist.pl
Open a shell as root, then execute
Pratchaya Rudjanisoragun:
> greylist unix - n n - - spawn
> user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/perl /usr/libexec/postfix/greylist.pl
Open a shell as root, then execute these commands:
# su nobody
$ /usr/bin/perl /usr/libexec/postfix/greylist.pl
And report any error
Hello Everyone
Let I ask one question about postfix policy
According to page http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html
I try to create policy by following above page but I always get the error as
below
Mar 26 18:07:29 TON postfix/smtpd[24332]: connect from localhost[127.0.0.1]
Mar 26 18
> If he can just use a (sender-dependent) transport to send his
> newsletter to, that would take care of the blockage, wouldn't it ?
Yes, provided that he does not saturate the active queue. There
is, however, no need to cripple this transport with single-recipient
deliveries. If one delivery t
On 06/08/2013 08:17 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Jeroen Geilman:
On 06/04/2013 02:20 PM, Erwan David wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:44:46PM CEST, Tom Hendrikx said:
On 06/04/2013 01:22 PM, Antonio Guti?rrez Mayoral wrote:
Hi Wietse,
Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered i
Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral skrev den 2013-06-04 13:22:
Maybe you can automatically HOLD all his mail and then automatically
release all his mail in the evening.
Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered in
bussines-time :-(
(it doesnt matter if it takes 2 hours... but in bussine
Jeroen Geilman:
> On 06/04/2013 02:20 PM, Erwan David wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:44:46PM CEST, Tom Hendrikx
> > said:
> >> On 06/04/2013 01:22 PM, Antonio Guti?rrez Mayoral wrote:
> >>> Hi Wietse,
> >>>
> >>> Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered in
> >>> bussines-t
On 06/04/2013 02:20 PM, Erwan David wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:44:46PM CEST, Tom Hendrikx said:
On 06/04/2013 01:22 PM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
Hi Wietse,
Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered in
bussines-time :-(
(it doesnt matter if it takes 2 hours... bu
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:44:46PM CEST, Tom Hendrikx said:
> On 06/04/2013 01:22 PM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
> > Hi Wietse,
> >
> > Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered in
> > bussines-time :-(
> > (it doesnt matter if it takes 2 hours... but in bussiness time...)
>
On 06/04/2013 01:22 PM, Antonio Gutiérrez Mayoral wrote:
> Hi Wietse,
>
> Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered in
> bussines-time :-(
> (it doesnt matter if it takes 2 hours... but in bussiness time...)
>
> thank you so much!
>
You could run a script as a cronjob that queue
Hi Wietse,
Yes, its a solution, but these emails should be delivered in bussines-time
:-(
(it doesnt matter if it takes 2 hours... but in bussiness time...)
thank you so much!
2013/6/4 Wietse Venema
> Maybe you can automatically HOLD all his mail and then automatically
> release all his mail
* Wietse Venema :
> Maybe you can automatically HOLD all his mail and then automatically
> release all his mail in the evening.
I even have a script for that...
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht
Maybe you can automatically HOLD all his mail and then automatically
release all his mail in the evening.
Wietse
Hi all!
My name is Antonio I am currently managing a system with postfix+
spamassassin and Maia.
First of all, sorry for my bad english.
I would like to ask a question. Once in a month, more or less, I have a
user who sends
a LOT of mails (mailing) to a group of recipients. This list could have
a
Benny Pedersen:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:54:22 +, aly.khi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Usually a reload is sufficient.
>
> to be more clear:
>
> if changes are done in main.cf then postfix reload
> if changes in master.cf then stop postfix, and start postfix
No, you can change master.cf without h
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 06:50:32PM +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:54:22 +, aly.khi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Usually a reload is sufficient.
>
> to be more clear:
>
> if changes are done in main.cf then postfix reload
> if changes in master.cf then stop postfix, and start p
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:54:22 +, aly.khi...@gmail.com wrote:
Usually a reload is sufficient.
to be more clear:
if changes are done in main.cf then postfix reload
if changes in master.cf then stop postfix, and start postfix
Usually a reload is sufficient.
Aly
--Original Message--
From: Li, Jilong (MU-Student)
Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: about postfix reload
Sent: Jun 21, 2011 12:48 PM
Hello,
After changing the file "main.cf", do I need to ru
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 04:48:50PM +, Li, Jilong (MU-Student) wrote:
> After changing the file "main.cf", do I need to run "postfix reload"
> ? Or should I run "/etc/rc.d/init.d/postfix restart" ?
A reload achieves a non-distruptive restart of all services other
than master(8). Also the maste
Hello,
After changing the file "main.cf", do I need to run "postfix reload" ? Or
should I run "/etc/rc.d/init.d/postfix restart" ?
Thank you very much!
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:42:54AM +, Maria Arrea wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, postfix 2.3.3 and dovecot
> 2.0.9. Mails are delivered to dovecot by virtual_transport=dovecot and
> the mailbox_command is /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver. Everything works
> as expected.
O
Maria Arrea:
> Hello
>
> I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, postfix 2.3.3 and dovecot 2.0.9. Mails
>- are delivered to dovecot by virtual_transport=dovecot and the mailbox_comma
>-nd is /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver. Everything works as expected.
>
> In dovecot I am testing enabling zlib compres
On 2/18/2011 4:46 AM, Maria Arrea wrote:
Hello
How do I increase the number of/"delivery slots"/. I
have/dovecot_destination_recipient_limit = 1/ in main.cf. In the postfix man page (8) of/pipe/
talks about single recipient delivery, and dovecot doc talks about not increasing this limit.
Hello How do I increase the number of /"delivery slots"/. I have
/dovecot_destination_recipient_limit = 1/ in main.cf. In the postfix man page
(8) of /pipe/ talks about single recipient delivery, and dovecot doc talks
about not increasing this limit. Should I increase this parameter? Or the
* Maria Arrea :
> Hello
>
> I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, postfix 2.3.3 and dovecot 2.0.9. Mails
> are delivered to dovecot by virtual_transport=dovecot and the mailbox_command
> is /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver. Everything works as expected.
>
> In dovecot I am testing enabling zlib comp
Hello
I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, postfix 2.3.3 and dovecot 2.0.9. Mails are
delivered to dovecot by virtual_transport=dovecot and the mailbox_command is
/usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver. Everything works as expected.
In dovecot I am testing enabling zlib compression to save some IOPs and
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:41:35 +0100
mouss articulated:
> Le 05/02/2011 00:34, Joe a écrit :
> > On 02/04/2011 03:13 PM, mouss wrote:
> >> Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
> >>> I always try to work with the package management system to keep
> >>> things sane and manageable if possible. postfix-2
Le 05/02/2011 00:34, Joe a écrit :
> On 02/04/2011 03:13 PM, mouss wrote:
>> Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
>>> I always try to work with the package management system to keep things
>>> sane and manageable if possible. postfix-2.7 and 2.8 rpms and srpms are
>>> available for centos from severa
On 02/04/2011 03:13 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
I always try to work with the package management system to keep things
sane and manageable if possible. postfix-2.7 and 2.8 rpms and srpms are
available for centos from several sources. It's pretty easy to replace
the ancien
Am 05.02.2011 00:13, schrieb mouss:
> Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
>> On 02/04/2011 10:42 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
>>>
>>> Still, I am (well, WAS) disappointed that Postfix 2.3.3 is what
>>> installs on CentOS 5.5 by default. But Postfix 2.8 wasn't that hard to
>>> compile. :)
>>>
>>
>> I alw
Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit :
> On 02/04/2011 10:42 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
>>
>> Still, I am (well, WAS) disappointed that Postfix 2.3.3 is what
>> installs on CentOS 5.5 by default. But Postfix 2.8 wasn't that hard to
>> compile. :)
>>
>
> I always try to work with the package management s
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 7:18 AM:
> I think there is a typo in the file:
>
> /^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\.nl$/
>
> PREPEND X-GenericStaticHELO: (versatel.ml)
> should read /ml/nl/
> /^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\
[ Reply-To: set to self as this is no longer on topic for the list ]
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:20:45AM +0100, J4K wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 05:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Steve Jenkins put forth on 2/3/2011 11:18 AM:
> >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K wrote:
> >>> Its a good idea, but thi
On 02/04/2011 10:42 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Still, I am (well, WAS) disappointed that Postfix 2.3.3 is what
installs on CentOS 5.5 by default. But Postfix 2.8 wasn't that hard to
compile. :)
I always try to work with the package management system to keep things
sane and manageable if possib
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 01:27:35PM -0600, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:56:51AM +0100, J4K wrote:
> > > Thank-you for the example. Can the /etc/postfix/whitelist be an
> > > empty file?
> > Answering my own question:-
> >
> > # ls -l /etc/postfix/whitelist
> > -rw-r- 1 root
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:56:51AM +0100, J4K wrote:
> > Thank-you for the example. Can the /etc/postfix/whitelist be an
> > empty file?
> Answering my own question:-
>
> # ls -l /etc/postfix/whitelist
> -rw-r- 1 root root 0 Feb 4 11:53 /etc/postfix/whitelist
>
> Feb 4 11:53:17 logout pos
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> CentOS 5.5, their latest, ships with Postfix 2.3.3, which hasn't been
>>> supported by Wietse for quite some time. A new install of CentOS 5.5
>>> gives you an officially unsupported Postfix, thought I'm sure CentOS
>>> will support it.
>>>
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:18 AM, J4K wrote:
> I think there is a typo in the file:
>
> /^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\.nl$/
> PREPEND X-GenericStaticHELO: (versatel.ml)
> should read /ml/nl/
> /^ip[12]?[0-9]{1,2}(-[12]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}\.adsl2?\.static\.versatel\.nl
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:48:08 -0600
Stan Hoeppner articulated:
> Well, I think there's a bit more to it than that. Some distros have
> various policies in place that hinder rapid inclusion. That said, if
> Sahil were associated with the Debian project instead of or in
> addition to FreeBSD, we'd
On 02/04/2011 11:45 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
>
>> Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
>> rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
>> not see any. Is there a string I could search for,
> Try:
> ~$
Zitat von Reindl Harald :
Am 04.02.2011 11:20, schrieb J4K:
I agree. I have plenty of colleagues who run their own mail servers from
residential connections and they know how to set-up their machines.
Maybe, but if they are running a mailserver form dial-up ranges
mail seems not to be impor
Reindl Harald put forth on 2/4/2011 4:35 AM:
>
>
> Am 04.02.2011 11:20, schrieb J4K:
>> I agree. I have plenty of colleagues who run their own mail servers from
>> residential connections and they know how to set-up their machines.
>
> Maybe, but if they are running a mailserver form dial-up
On 02/04/2011 11:53 AM, J4K wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 11:45 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
>>
>>> Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
>>> rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
>>> not see any. Is there
On 02/04/2011 11:45 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
>
>> Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
>> rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
>> not see any. Is there a string I could search for,
> Try:
> ~$
J4K put forth on 2/4/2011 4:20 AM:
> Back to the Stan's pcre file:- I've been running through the logs for
> rejects specifically caused by this file (or prepends). However I did
> not see any. Is there a string I could search for,
Try:
~$ egrep "Dynamic - Please|Generic - Please|X-GenericSta
Am 04.02.2011 11:20, schrieb J4K:
> I agree. I have plenty of colleagues who run their own mail servers from
> residential connections and they know how to set-up their machines.
Maybe, but if they are running a mailserver form dial-up ranges
mail seems not to be important for them because si
On 02/04/2011 05:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Steve Jenkins put forth on 2/3/2011 11:18 AM:
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K wrote:
>>> Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
>>> residential ADSL from being an Email server, and force them to use their
>>> IS
Steve Jenkins put forth on 2/3/2011 11:18 AM:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K wrote:
>> Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
>> residential ADSL from being an Email server, and force them to use their
>> ISPs relay. Else they might have to upgrade to a bus
Jerry put forth on 2/3/2011 5:19 AM:
> FreeBSD had the 2.8 release in its ports system a few days after it was
> officially released. The 2.9(beta) release will be released into the
> ports system shortly. The original 2.8(beta) was available almost
> from its inception. The speed with which a pac
J4K put forth on 2/3/2011 4:09 AM:
> True. Some of the matches don't reject, but prepend this header:
> X-GenericStaticHELO
> What is this header used for?
This exists due to the grey area between "residential" and "business"
classification. Some providers offer static IP service to small busi
J4K put forth on 2/3/2011 3:44 AM:
> Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
> residential ADSL from being an Email server,
As the directions in the file itself state, fix situations like this with a
simple whitelist. Given the number of hobbyist servers your MX w
On 2/3/11 1:44 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/2/2011 2:56 PM:
Debian won't have 2.8 in stable until at least 2013, although you may be able to
get it as a backport later this year:
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=postfix
They lag behind something awful.
You
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 AM, J4K wrote:
> Its a good idea, but this would limit a user from using a server on his
> residential ADSL from being an Email server, and force them to use their
> ISPs relay. Else they might have to upgrade to a business package or spend
> more money for a static IP
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:44:13 +0100
J4K wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 11:54 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner
> > wrote:
> >> In the mean time, maybe give this a go. 1600+ expressions matching rDNS
> >> patterns of many millions of broadband IPs worldwide that
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:44:46 -0600
Stan Hoeppner articulated:
> Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/2/2011 2:56 PM:
>
> > Debian won't have 2.8 in stable until at least 2013, although you
> > may be able to get it as a backport later this year:
> >
> > http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=postf
On 02/03/2011 10:56 AM, Daniel Bromberg wrote:
> On 2/3/2011 4:44 AM, J4K wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> I can attest to the awesomeness of Stan's pcre file. I run it on all 5
>>> of our Postfix servers, and it catches a LOT of stuff. From my logs,
>>> what it seems to do best is block zombie mailers on dyna
On 2/3/2011 4:44 AM, J4K wrote:
[snip]
I can attest to the awesomeness of Stan's pcre file. I run it on all 5
of our Postfix servers, and it catches a LOT of stuff. From my logs,
what it seems to do best is block zombie mailers on dynamic IPs.
And I updated to your latest version today, Stan. T
On 02/02/2011 11:54 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> In the mean time, maybe give this a go. 1600+ expressions matching rDNS
>> patterns of many millions of broadband IPs worldwide that shouldn't be
>> sending
>> direct SMTP. Catches quite a bit
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 2/2/2011 2:56 PM:
> Debian won't have 2.8 in stable until at least 2013, although you may be able
> to
> get it as a backport later this year:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=postfix
>
> They lag behind something awful.
You're smoke'n crack. ;) 2.7.1
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> In the mean time, maybe give this a go. 1600+ expressions matching rDNS
> patterns of many millions of broadband IPs worldwide that shouldn't be sending
> direct SMTP. Catches quite a bit that PBL/CBL/SORBS-DYNA/etc don't and with
> less del
JKL put forth on 2/2/2011 12:23 PM:
>
> On 02/02/2011 06:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
>>
>>> The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
>>> cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
>>>
>>> smtpd_recipient_rest
On 2/2/11 7:23 PM, JKL wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = sleep 3,
permit_
On 02/02/2011 06:17 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:30:52PM +0100, J4K wrote:
>
>> The smtpd has a 'sleep 3' at the start of it. Might this have been the
>> cause? If so, then it served the purpose.
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = sleep 3,
>> permit_mynetworks,permi
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
