On 22/10/2012 16:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tom Kinghorn:
I suspect there was garbage at the end of lines. Postfix logs
warnings in the maillog file when smtpd_xxx_restrictions contains
unrecognized content.
Wietse
Thanks for the response Wietse.
Thanks to all who helped.
regards
Tom
Tom Kinghorn:
> >> I checked the config and found that the lines did not end with a comma.
> >> As soon as I added it, the access rule started working and mails were
> >> redirected (i changed REJECT to REDIRECT)
> > What program are you using to edit main.cf?
> Hi Wietse.
> This was an "inherited
On 22/10/2012 15:55, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/22/2012 8:39 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
On 22/10/2012 15:32, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 22.10.2012 15:29, schrieb Tom Kinghorn:
On 18/10/2012 14:41, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/18/2012 5:04 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
DO NOT send debug log files unless specific
On 22/10/2012 15:51, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tom Kinghorn:
it would be nice having at the end of the thread the example config
with corrected typo to help others which finding this in the archives!
apologies.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_ns_access
hash:/etc/postfix/r
On 10/22/2012 8:39 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 22/10/2012 15:32, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 22.10.2012 15:29, schrieb Tom Kinghorn:
>>>
>>> On 18/10/2012 14:41, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/18/2012 5:04 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> DO NOT send debug log files unless specifically requested. No
Tom Kinghorn:
> > it would be nice having at the end of the thread the example config
> > with corrected typo to help others which finding this in the archives!
> >
> apologies.
>
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> check_recipient_ns_access
> hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_nameserver_hos
On 22/10/2012 15:32, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 22.10.2012 15:29, schrieb Tom Kinghorn:
On 18/10/2012 14:41, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/18/2012 5:04 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
DO NOT send debug log files unless specifically requested. Normal
log files are sufficient.
And a friendly reminder that s
Am 22.10.2012 15:29, schrieb Tom Kinghorn:
>
>
> On 18/10/2012 14:41, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 10/18/2012 5:04 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
>>>
>>> DO NOT send debug log files unless specifically requested. Normal
>>> log files are sufficient.
>>>
>>>
>>> And a friendly reminder that splitting requi
On 18/10/2012 14:41, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/18/2012 5:04 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
DO NOT send debug log files unless specifically requested. Normal
log files are sufficient.
And a friendly reminder that splitting required troubleshooting info
up between multiple messages greatly reduces th
On 18/10/2012 14:41, Noel Jones wrote:
On 10/18/2012 5:04 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
DO NOT send debug log files unless specifically requested. Normal
log files are sufficient.
And a friendly reminder that splitting required troubleshooting info
up between multiple messages greatly reduces the
On 10/18/2012 5:04 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> I had the debug included but the list admin bounced it due to max
> characters exceeded.
> I will resend it to the list
DO NOT send debug log files unless specifically requested. Normal
log files are sufficient.
And a friendly reminder that splittin
On 18/10/2012 12:55, Jerry wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:04:37 +0200
Tom Kinghorn articulated:
{While you are at it, could you lose the urge to send posts in HTML
format. "GMail" is perfectly capable of sending in plain text format.
Thank you!
Formatting changed.
Apologies.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:04:37 +0200
Tom Kinghorn articulated:
{SNIP}
> I had the debug included but the list admin bounced it due to max
> characters exceeded.
> I will resend it to the list.
While you are at it, could you lose the urge to send posts in HTML
format. "GMail" is perfectly capable
On 17/10/2012 15:18, Noel Jones wrote:
Show "postconf -n" and the postfix logs of your test. -- Noel Jones
Hi Noel.
I guess I should have done that at the start, my apologies.
Just an update.
when doing a test via the CLI, it seems to work.
So I am guessing a permit statement further down is
On 10/17/2012 3:31 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 17/10/2012 10:14, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>> On 10/17/12 10:05 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
>>>
>> You're testing NS records for the recipient address here, not the sender.
>>
>>> i tested using ad...@cpf.co.za
>>>
>>> cpf.co.za is hosted at sedoparking.com
>>
On 17/10/2012 10:14, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
On 10/17/12 10:05 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
You're testing NS records for the recipient address here, not the sender.
i tested using ad...@cpf.co.za
cpf.co.za is hosted at sedoparking.com
in the recipient_ns_host file I have
sedoparking.comREJECT
On 10/17/12 10:05 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 14:48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Tom Kinghorn:
>>> check_sender_ns_access type:table
>>> Search the specified access(5) database for the DNS servers for
>>> the MAIL FROM address, and execute the corresponding action.
>>> Note: a r
On 11/10/2012 14:48, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tom Kinghorn:
check_sender_ns_access type:table
Search the specified access(5) database for the DNS servers for
the MAIL FROM address, and execute the corresponding action.
Note: a result of "OK" is not allowed for safety reasons.
Ins
Am 11.10.2012 15:06, schrieb Jacqui Caren:
> On 11/10/2012 12:33, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
>> On 11/10/2012 13:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> the side-effect is domains without any mail-address and a a-record
>>> are deferred for 5 days until the message bounces
>>>
>> Thats exactly as i thought..
>
On 11/10/2012 12:33, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
On 11/10/2012 13:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
the side-effect is domains without any mail-address and a a-record
are deferred for 5 days until the message bounces
Thats exactly as i thought..
one can always hope though...:o)
configure the firewall to
Tom Kinghorn:
> looking at the domains, they all have a SOA record as
>
> ns1.sedoparking.com
>
> wish we could ban any domain hosted at sedoparking.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#check_sender_ns_access
check_sender_ns_access type:table
Search the specified access(5) database f
Am 11.10.2012 14:20, schrieb Michael Storz:
> Am 2012-10-11 13:36, schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>> i do this via mysql and a daily php-script which is
>> removing error-transport if the domain get a MX record
>> which is NOT fakemx.net
>>
>> currently the table has some thousand recors from the last 2
Am 2012-10-11 13:36, schrieb Reindl Harald:
i do this via mysql and a daily php-script which is
removing error-transport if the domain get a MX record
which is NOT fakemx.net
currently the table has some thousand recors from the last 2 years
Do you populate the database manually or automatica
Am 11.10.2012 14:08, schrieb Tom Kinghorn:
> On 11/10/2012 13:38, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>> * Reindl Harald :
>>
>>> but be careful remove the error-transport if the domain
>>> becomes active mail-services!
>> Oh yes!
>>
> looking at the domains, they all have a SOA record as
>
> ns1.sedopar
On 11/10/2012 13:38, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Reindl Harald :
but be careful remove the error-transport if the domain
becomes active mail-services!
Oh yes!
looking at the domains, they all have a SOA record as
ns1.sedoparking.com
wish we could ban any domain hosted at sedoparking.
* Reindl Harald :
> but be careful remove the error-transport if the domain
> becomes active mail-services!
Oh yes!
> i do this via mysql and a daily php-script which is
> removing error-transport if the domain get a MX record
> which is NOT fakemx.net
>
> currently the table has some thousand
Am 11.10.2012 13:32, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
> * Tom Kinghorn :
>> Good afternoon list
>>
>> Today, i have started seeing alot of connection time-outs on queued mail.
>>
>> I have noticed miss-typed domain names, which have all been
>> regsitered elsewhere, with NO MX records, but A records.
>>
On 11/10/2012 13:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.10.2012 13:23, schrieb Tom Kinghorn:
you can not deal with this expect create a error-transport
for such domains manually - but be aware if this domain
get later working mailservices to remove it!
a domain does not need a MX record, that is how it
* Tom Kinghorn :
> Good afternoon list
>
> Today, i have started seeing alot of connection time-outs on queued mail.
>
> I have noticed miss-typed domain names, which have all been
> regsitered elsewhere, with NO MX records, but A records.
>
> as such, the mails are just sitting in the queues, d
Am 11.10.2012 13:23, schrieb Tom Kinghorn:
> Good afternoon list
>
> Today, i have started seeing alot of connection time-outs on queued mail.
>
> I have noticed miss-typed domain names, which have all been regsitered
> elsewhere, with NO MX records, but A records.
>
> as such, the mails are
Good afternoon list
Today, i have started seeing alot of connection time-outs on queued mail.
I have noticed miss-typed domain names, which have all been regsitered
elsewhere, with NO MX records, but A records.
as such, the mails are just sitting in the queues, doing nothing.
How would one d
31 matches
Mail list logo
