On 8/5/2012 10:53 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 07:48:56AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 8/4/2012 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>
postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why you did this. Some MTAs, notably qmail, are
>>> likely to assault you wit
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 07:48:56AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
> >> postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
> >
> > I'm not sure why you did this. Some MTAs, notably qmail, are
> > likely to assault you with many simultaneous connections. This
>
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:41:25PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > I'm not addressing the subject of the post, but just picking
> > over the configuration snippet.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:48:45PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
> >> [root@mt
On 8/4/2012 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
>
> I'm not sure why you did this. Some MTAs, notably qmail, are likely
> to assault you with many simultaneous connections. This non-default
> setting might cause difficulty at times in receiving legitimate
Am 04.08.2012 23:41, schrieb Chad M Stewart:
>>> postscreen_greet_banner = "Welcome to our mail server"
>>
>> This is non-compliant and a bad idea.
>
> That is prepended to the banner, the banner becomes a multi-line response,
> with the last line being the fqdn of the host.
this is a bad ide
On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:08 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> I'm not addressing the subject of the post, but just picking over the
> configuration snippet.
>
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:48:45PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
>> [root@mta01 /usr/local/etc/postfix]# postconf -n|grep postscreen
> [snip]
>> post
I'm not addressing the subject of the post, but just picking over the
configuration snippet.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:48:45PM -0500, Chad M Stewart wrote:
> [root@mta01 /usr/local/etc/postfix]# postconf -n|grep postscreen
[snip]
> postscreen_client_connection_count_limit = 10
I'm not sure why
On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:03 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/2/2012 6:26 AM, Chad M Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Chad M Stewart:
I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
and noticed that a recently connected IP
Wietse Venema:
> Chad M Stewart:
> >
> > On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > Chad M Stewart:
> > >>
> > >> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
> > >> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
> > >> PASS OLD but rather PAS
Chad M Stewart:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Chad M Stewart:
> >>
> >> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
> >> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
> >> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
> >
On 8/2/2012 6:26 AM, Chad M Stewart wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> Chad M Stewart:
>>>
>>> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
>>> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
>>> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See
On Aug 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Chad M Stewart:
>>
>> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
>> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
>> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
>
> PASS NEW means there was no ca
Chad M Stewart:
>
> I am not understanding something correctly. I'm using postscreen
> and noticed that a recently connected IP had was not marked as
> PASS OLD but rather PASS NEW. See log entires below
PASS NEW means there was no cache entry. Postfix does not
keep expired entries for eternity
13 matches
Mail list logo
