> On May 6, 2018, at 5:19 AM, Proxy wrote:
>
>
> I set reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname and will see how that goes.
Unlikely to make a difference in this case:
May 4 04:02:03 A postfix/smtpd[15310]: warning: hostname
triband-del-59.178.65.172.bol.net.in does not resolve to addr
On 2018-May-05 20:54, Bill Cole wrote:
> Try reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname first. It is safer than
> reject_unknown_client_hostname. It won't catch the specific miscreant in
> your log but unlike reject_unknown_client_hostname it won't block random
> outbound IPs of major mailbox providers
On 5 May 2018, at 17:33, Proxy wrote:
On 2018-May-05 23:20, Proxy wrote:
On 2018-May-05 17:08, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
Well, you should now try with "enable_original_recipient = yes" and
wait
for another message to come in. Then report logging for that.
Perhaps
the second recipient is ju
On 2018-May-05 23:20, Proxy wrote:
> On 2018-May-05 17:08, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >
> > Well, you should now try with "enable_original_recipient = yes" and wait
> > for another message to come in. Then report logging for that. Perhaps
> > the second recipient is just local alias expansion, de
On 2018-May-05 17:08, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> Well, you should now try with "enable_original_recipient = yes" and wait
> for another message to come in. Then report logging for that. Perhaps
> the second recipient is just local alias expansion, despite the lack
> of "orig_to=" in the log ent
> On May 5, 2018, at 4:21 PM, Proxy wrote:
>
$ postmap -q gmail.com $(postconf -hx virtual_alias_domains
virtual_mailbox_domains)
>>>
>>> virtual_alias_domains and virtual_mailbox_domains are in mysql database.
>>> That command gives:
>>>
>>> postmap: fatal: open /etc/postfix
On 2018-May-05 12:03, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
> > On May 5, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Proxy wrote:
> >
> >> Report the output of:
> >>
> >> $ postmap -q gmail.com $(postconf -hx virtual_alias_domains
> >> virtual_mailbox_domains)
> >>
> >
> > virtual_alias_domains and virtual_mailbox_domains a
> On May 5, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Proxy wrote:
>
> Anyway, I have aliases that are forwarded to my gmail address. Maybe
> that's why it is considered auth_destination. I also have one setting
> regarding gmail:
Aliases don't have that effect, only address classes do, which is why
I am asking for
> On May 5, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Proxy wrote:
>
>> Report the output of:
>>
>> $ postmap -q gmail.com $(postconf -hx virtual_alias_domains
>> virtual_mailbox_domains)
>>
>
> virtual_alias_domains and virtual_mailbox_domains are in mysql database.
> That command gives:
>
> postmap: fatal: op
On 2018-May-05 12:19, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Report the output of:
>
>$ postmap -q gmail.com $(postconf -hx virtual_alias_domains
> virtual_mailbox_domains)
>
virtual_alias_domains and virtual_mailbox_domains are in mysql database.
That command gives:
postmap: fatal: open /etc/postfix/
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 12:31:12PM +0200, Proxy wrote:
> I'm sending postconf -n, postconf -Mf and relevant logs in attachments.
> content_filter = amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
> enable_original_recipient = no
> gmail_destination_rate_delay = 1s
> mydestination =
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>
On 2018-May-04 17:09, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> For actual help:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
>
I'm sending postconf -n, postconf -Mf and relevant logs in attachments.
append_dot_mydomain = no
biff = no
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
config_directory = /etc/postfix
co
> On May 4, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Proxy wrote:
>
> May 4 04:02:03 hostname postfix/smtpd[15310]: connect from
> unknown[59.178.65.172]
> May 4 04:02:04 hostname postfix/smtpd[15310]: B2DF28EE52:
> client=unknown[59.178.65.172]
> May 4 04:02:05 hostname postfix/smtpd[15310]: disconnect from
>
On 2018-May-04 22:03, Proxy wrote:
> On 2018-May-04 13:22, LuKreme wrote:
> > On May 4, 2018, at 12:33, Proxy wrote:
> > > This website have some form for contacting me
> >
> > This is almost certainly where the fault lies. How is this form protected?
> > How does it authenticate with your serve
On 2018-May-04 13:22, LuKreme wrote:
> On May 4, 2018, at 12:33, Proxy wrote:
> > This website have some form for contacting me
>
> This is almost certainly where the fault lies. How is this form protected?
> How does it authenticate with your server? How ancient is the code used for
> the form
On May 4, 2018, at 12:33, Proxy wrote:
> This website have some form for contacting me
This is almost certainly where the fault lies. How is this form protected? How
does it authenticate with your server? How ancient is the code used for the
form? How do you verify a human?
--
My main job is
16 matches
Mail list logo
