Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/26/2010 7:09 PM:
> I have one last question. Since postfix's header information is most
> meaningful, is there a setting that would allow me to strip all the
> previous header info (in this case exchange's)?
Yes. This was covered somewhat recently on the list, and s
I have one last question. Since postfix's header information is most
meaningful, is there a setting that would allow me to strip all the
previous header info (in this case exchange's)?
Thanks
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/25/2010 6:06 PM:
On 12/26/10 1:58 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
mouss put forth on 12/26/2010 4:13 AM:
Le 26/12/2010 05:12, Roman Gelfand a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/24/2010 10:45 AM:
I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbound se
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/25/2010 6:06 PM:
> Actually, the original proble reported with the previous post namely
> connection timeout was resolved. After checking tcpdump, I realized
> outgoing smtp port was closed.
>
> But, as it appears, this email was not in vain. I need to use a
> diffe
mouss put forth on 12/26/2010 4:13 AM:
> Le 26/12/2010 05:12, Roman Gelfand a écrit :
>> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Stan Hoeppner
>> wrote:
>>> Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/24/2010 10:45 AM:
I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbound server,
is on internal edge
Le 26/12/2010 05:12, Roman Gelfand a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/24/2010 10:45 AM:
>>> I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbound server,
>>> is on internal edge of the dmz.
>>
>> Bah, you did mention the Exchan
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/24/2010 10:45 AM:
>> I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbound server,
>> is on internal edge of the dmz.
>
> Bah, you did mention the Exchange server and I just missed it. The 587
> is more g
Actually, the original proble reported with the previous post namely
connection timeout was resolved. After checking tcpdump, I realized
outgoing smtp port was closed.
But, as it appears, this email was not in vain. I need to use a
different smtpd server. Nevertheless, the 587 server worked wel
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 03:20:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbound server,
> > is on internal edge of the dmz.
>
> Bah, you did mention the Exchange server and I just missed it. The 587
> is more geared toward MUAs like Outlook and TBi
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/24/2010 10:45 AM:
> I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbound server,
> is on internal edge of the dmz.
Bah, you did mention the Exchange server and I just missed it. The 587
is more geared toward MUAs like Outlook and TBird. If you just want to
r
I neglected to mention the exchange server, source outbound server,
is on internal edge of the dmz.
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/23/2010 10:01 PM:
>
>> I am now looking to use the postfix mail gateway, smart host,
>> to send mail out. Sp
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/23/2010 10:01 PM:
> I am now looking to use the postfix mail gateway, smart host,
> to send mail out. Specifically, I would like to bypass all of
> the checks done for incoming mail
If you are referring to user submitted mail to be relayed to the outside
world, yo
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:01:44PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> I am using postfix server as an smtp gateway to exchange server. I
> have configured a series of services and filters with postfix. One of
> antispam daemons is dspam, content filter. I have configured it to
> replace smtp server.
13 matches
Mail list logo
