Hi,
> At any rate, you miss the point.
> The smtpd_{client, helo, sender, recipient}_restrictions are about *when* a
> check takes place, corresponding to the {client connection, HELO, MAIL FROM,
> RCPT TO} stage of the SMTP transaction.
It works now, thanks so much.
I understand much more clear
On 11/13/2009 10:57 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
maps_rbl_domains =
zen.spamhaus.org
cbl.abuseat.org
sbl.spamhaus.org
pbl.spamhaus.org
zen.spamhaus.org already includes both sbl.spamhaus.org and
pbl.spamhaus.org.
Oops, zen also includes cbl.abuseat.org. So you're doing 1
lookup for the price of 4.
On 11/12/2009 10:09 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
If you don't want to whitelist the IP address completely but instead just
want to allow it to bypass your HELO checks, then check_helo_access will
work. However, you should first understand that the type of lookup performed
depends on the name of the rest
On 12-Nov-2009, at 21:09, Alex wrote:
> But helo is a component of the envelope, no?
No.
--
<[TN]FBMachine> i got kicked out of Barnes and Noble once for
moving all the bibles into the fiction section
Hi,
> If you don't want to whitelist the IP address completely but instead just
> want to allow it to bypass your HELO checks, then check_helo_access will
> work. However, you should first understand that the type of lookup performed
> depends on the name of the restriction, NOT where the restrict
On 11/12/2009 9:21 PM, Alex wrote:
It looks as if you're trying to whitelist the client by IP, so you need
check_client_access to check an IP.
Yes, and I've tried that too. I have done quite a bit of reading, and
afraid I'm getting conflicting info now. I've read posts from Ralf in
the past, as
Hi,
> Stop top posting. Google for the term if you don't understand.
Sorry, that was only to follow up with my own post, so people had a reference.
> It looks as if you're trying to whitelist the client by IP, so you need
> check_client_access to check an IP.
Yes, and I've tried that too. I ha
Noel Jones wrote:
On 11/12/2009 1:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping
me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a
proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for
several IP addresses.
I've ad
On 11/12/2009 1:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping
me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a
proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for
several IP addresses.
I've added check_helo_acce
Alex wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping
me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a
proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for
several IP addresses.
I've added check_helo_access as the first line of
Hi,
To follow up with my own post, I should mention that I did postmap the
file, which I should have mentioned.
I also thought it might be better to add it to smtpd_client_restrictions?
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_checks
Perhaps that's the way to
Hi folks,
I'm still working on the problem you have all been so kind in helping
me with, and have a problem relating to helo_checks. We require a
proper FQDN for the helo, but would like to make an exception for
several IP addresses.
I've added check_helo_access as the first line of my
smtpd_reci
On 11/11/2009 11:36 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
But commas do make it prettier to look at.
My reality has been shaken, and everything I previously thought I knew drawn
into question.
Yeah, crazy. I always had the smtpd_recipient_restrictions separated
by a comma, all on one line, until recently whe
Hi,
>> But commas do make it prettier to look at.
>
> My reality has been shaken, and everything I previously thought I knew drawn
> into question.
Yeah, crazy. I always had the smtpd_recipient_restrictions separated
by a comma, all on one line, until recently when I saw so many others
using it o
Noel Jones wrote:
On 11/11/2009 10:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I'm guessing even v1.x required commas between restrictions?
Nope, a comma between restrictions is not now and has never been a
requirement.
Comma, space, LF+space are all considered equal. Mix and match to your
heart's desir
On 11/11/2009 10:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I'm guessing even v1.x required commas between restrictions?
Nope, a comma between restrictions is not now and has never
been a requirement.
Comma, space, LF+space are all considered equal. Mix and
match to your heart's desire.
But commas do
Alex wrote:
Hi,
I hoped someone could clarify for me the difference between
check_sender_access and check_client_access? I don't know why the docs
are unclear to me.
Both restrictions look up something in an access table, and return a
result. With check_client_access, the thing that is looked
On 11/11/2009 8:18 PM, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I hoped someone could clarify for me the difference between
check_sender_access and check_client_access? I don't know why the docs
are unclear to me.
When is a sender_access restriction used and when is a client_access
restriction used? I thought the clien
Hi,
I hoped someone could clarify for me the difference between
check_sender_access and check_client_access? I don't know why the docs
are unclear to me.
When is a sender_access restriction used and when is a client_access
restriction used? I thought the client_access was based on the
envelope in
Hi,
>> I'm still using postfix-1.x,
>
> Most people here would stop reading there and press/click delete (or
> some might simply click 'Reply' and add the words 'upgrade').
>
> So... UPGRADE. It is time.
Thanks for hitting me with the well-deserved clue-bat. Advice well taken.
Now, what if I sai
On 11/10/2009, Alex (mysqlstud...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I'm still using postfix-1.x,
Most people here would stop reading there and press/click delete (or
some might simply click 'Reply' and add the words 'upgrade').
So... UPGRADE. It is time.
> is there going to be significant configuration change
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:01:45PM -0500, Alex wrote:
> Reading from a message in the second queue waiting to be delivered,
> the source IP is not one from the pop-before-smtp database
"Is not now" is not the same as "was not then".
> and is not
> from the internal network.
You have shown no co
22 matches
Mail list logo
