David Favro a écrit :
> Friends,
>
> What would be valuable (or at least interesting) to me is to treat the RDNS
> lookup (peer address->name and subsequent name->address) as a part of
> smtpd_client_restrictions, or in some way delay it until that time.
> [snip]
The lookup result is used in th
David Favro:
> Friends,
>
> What would be valuable (or at least interesting) to me is to treat the RDNS
> lookup (peer address->name and subsequent name->address) as a part of
> smtpd_client_restrictions, or in some way delay it until that time.
> Currently,
> it seems that both of the above loo
Friends,
What would be valuable (or at least interesting) to me is to treat the RDNS
lookup (peer address->name and subsequent name->address) as a part of
smtpd_client_restrictions, or in some way delay it until that time. Currently,
it seems that both of the above lookups take place before any
s
On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix?
http://www.postfix.org/documentation.html
?
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Steve wrote:
lookups from Postfix. I can't see why nothing else does this, just
postfix and PTR.
Sendmail also does this (and likely Exim and others), unless IIRC, the
range was included in access AND class R, this likely wont work with
Postfix's methods since Sendmail's
Steve:
> DNS for local queries. It's wierd that it only happens with reverse
> lookups from Postfix. I can't see why nothing else does this, just
> postfix and PTR.
You have turned on the "chroot" feature for smtpd in master.cf,
but you have not provided the proper name service files in the
/var/s
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 12:32 +0200, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Steve wrote:
> > I'll have to live with the waste of bandwidth looking up local clients
> > has on the network. It's a small cost value, but an unnecessary one and
> > it really s
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:52 +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Steve wrote:
> >
> > I'll have to live with the waste of bandwidth looking up local clients
> > has on the network. It's a small cost value, but an unnecessary one and
>
> Thanks for the laugh. I wonder
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 06:41 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix? There is a lot of
> > 'half' documentation Ralf and plenty of 'assumed that you know'. It the
> > documentation was soo
Steve:
> I've recently noticed that my Postfix is being a naughty bunny. It is
> attempting to query my ISP nameserver to reverse resolve LAN addresses
> defined in my_networks.
There are many errors in that statement.
1) Postfix does not send DNS queries to your ISP, or to anyone else.
2) The c
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Steve wrote:
>
> I'll have to live with the waste of bandwidth looking up local clients
> has on the network. It's a small cost value, but an unnecessary one and
Thanks for the laugh. I wonder what you call not having a local caching
nameserver then? You
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Steve
wrote:
>>
> Can you fix your client to post ONLIST please, and not direct to user.
>From the headers of your email:
Reply-to: steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk
So either the list software is broken, or yours is (I suspect the
former). It's not the fault o
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 06:41 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix? There is a lot of
> > 'half' documentation Ralf and plenty of 'assumed that you know'. It the
> > documentation was soo
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 10:49, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>> smtpd_peername_lookup = yes
>> I meant: smtpd_peername_lookup = no - of course.
>
> smtpd_peername_excemptions_maps missing so ?
>
Its way.
Steve,
Its not possible disable PTR look
On Tue, May 19, 2009 10:49, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>> smtpd_peername_lookup = yes
> I meant: smtpd_peername_lookup = no - of course.
smtpd_peername_excemptions_maps missing so ?
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix? There is a lot of
> 'half' documentation Ralf and plenty of 'assumed that you know'. It the
> documentation was s great I would not have had to ask on a list for
> something ra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Steve wrote:
> I'll have to live with the waste of bandwidth looking up local clients
> has on the network. It's a small cost value, but an unnecessary one and
> it really should be more configurable than on or off. There needs to be
> a way to ma
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 11:15 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
> > On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > smtpd_peername_lookup = no
> >
> > Any idea what it defaults to Ralf?
>
> postconf -d smtpd_peername_lookup
>
No good. Stops all PTR lookups. Never mind.
I
* Steve :
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > smtpd_peername_lookup = no
>
> Any idea what it defaults to Ralf?
postconf -d smtpd_peername_lookup
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerbesch
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> smtpd_peername_lookup = no
Any idea what it defaults to Ralf?
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> > Indeed, Postfix does *not* perform DNS queries. However, it asks the
> > question in the first instance that results in the lookup. This is just
> > a case of arguing semantics. It is close to buggy behaviour IMHO. If it
> > produces unintended results = bug.
>
> smtpd_pe
* Steve :
> Indeed, Postfix does *not* perform DNS queries. However, it asks the
> question in the first instance that results in the lookup. This is just
> a case of arguing semantics. It is close to buggy behaviour IMHO. If it
> produces unintended results = bug.
smtpd_peername_lookup = yes
--
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:43 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
>
> > > Where is this behaviour documented?
>
> > Good question. If it is not surely it would make a sensible feature
> > request? Clearly as an expert on Postfix perhaps you can tell *ME* how
> > to get Postfix to stop attemp
* Steve :
> > Where is this behaviour documented?
> Good question. If it is not surely it would make a sensible feature
> request? Clearly as an expert on Postfix perhaps you can tell *ME* how
> to get Postfix to stop attempting rubbish DNS lookups rather than try
> and start an argument with me?
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 09:39 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
>
> > I disagree. It looks like Postfix is broken. Whilst I can see the desire
> > to look up private IP ranges to see if they have a PTR record, it would
> > not be unreasonable to expect it not to do it for trusted clients -
* Steve :
> I disagree. It looks like Postfix is broken. Whilst I can see the desire
> to look up private IP ranges to see if they have a PTR record, it would
> not be unreasonable to expect it not to do it for trusted clients - such
> as those defined in 'my_networks'.
Where is this behaviour do
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 09:28 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
> > Hello 'list';
> > This is my first time out in 'list' land so please don't flame me if I
> > get the format wrong. Coaching and constructive criticism is fine ;-)
> > {usenet group seems to be almost dead ?}
> >
> > I've re
* Steve :
> Hello 'list';
> This is my first time out in 'list' land so please don't flame me if I
> get the format wrong. Coaching and constructive criticism is fine ;-)
> {usenet group seems to be almost dead ?}
>
> I've recently noticed that my Postfix is being a naughty bunny. It is
> attempti
Hello 'list';
This is my first time out in 'list' land so please don't flame me if I
get the format wrong. Coaching and constructive criticism is fine ;-)
{usenet group seems to be almost dead ?}
I've recently noticed that my Postfix is being a naughty bunny. It is
attempting to query my ISP names
29 matches
Mail list logo
