В Пнд, 14/06/2010 в 09:39 -0500, Noel Jones пишет:
> On 6/14/2010 2:46 AM, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
> > Also can somebody state that my postfix version (Debian say its
> > 2.5.5-1.1) doesn't have postmaster hardcoded internal checks? It seems
> > like it have, because there is no postmaster accept
В Пнд, 14/06/2010 в 09:39 -0500, Noel Jones пишет:
> On 6/14/2010 2:46 AM, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
> > Also can somebody state that my postfix version (Debian say its
> > 2.5.5-1.1) doesn't have postmaster hardcoded internal checks? It seems
> > like it have, because there is no postmaster accept
On 6/14/2010 2:46 AM, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
Also can somebody state that my postfix version (Debian say its
2.5.5-1.1) doesn't have postmaster hardcoded internal checks? It seems
like it have, because there is no postmaster accepting rule in my
configuration:
/etc/postfix # grep -R postmaste
В Суб, 12/06/2010 в 20:27 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 2:24 PM:
>
> > This client name unmungled:
> >
> > smtp.harddriveme.com [111.67.206.181]
>
> This should have been caught by one of the two SORBS lists you said you added
> per my advice. SORBS has
В Птн, 11/06/2010 в 17:48 -0400, Sahil Tandon пишет:
> You mention that /etc/postfix/recipients_access is empty, but why then
> do you keep it in smtpd_recipient_restrictions? And although the flat
> file is empty, did you postmap it to rebuild the hash (.db file) as
> well?
> Actually, before go
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 2:24 PM:
> This client name unmungled:
>
> smtp.harddriveme.com [111.67.206.181]
This should have been caught by one of the two SORBS lists you said you added
per my advice. SORBS has been listing the parent /20 since Nov 2009.
Netblock: 111.67.1
You mention that /etc/postfix/recipients_access is empty, but why then
do you keep it in smtpd_recipient_restrictions? And although the flat
file is empty, did you postmap it to rebuild the hash (.db file) as
well?
Actually, before going down that road: did the abovementioned file
contain an OK f
В Птн, 11/06/2010 в 13:54 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 1:37 PM:
> > В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 16:48 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
> >> В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
> >>> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
> >>>
>
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/11/2010 1:37 PM:
> В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 16:48 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
>> В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
>>> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
>>>
Thanks for suggestion, I'll apply it.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 16:48 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
> В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
> > Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
> >
> > > Thanks for suggestion, I'll apply it.
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> > > But if somebody can help discover (configura
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:50:16AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > If the postmaster address is excluded from spam checks then you
> > may want to change the address_verify_sender setting.
> >
> > The current default is:
> > address_verify_sender = $double_bounce_sender
>
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:55:30PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Victor Duchovni :
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:50:16AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > If the postmaster address is excluded from spam checks then you
> > > may want to change the address_verify_sender setting.
> > >
>
* Victor Duchovni :
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:50:16AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > If the postmaster address is excluded from spam checks then you
> > may want to change the address_verify_sender setting.
> >
> > The current default is:
> > address_verify_sender = $double_bounce_sende
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:50:16AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> If the postmaster address is excluded from spam checks then you
> may want to change the address_verify_sender setting.
>
> The current default is:
> address_verify_sender = $double_bounce_sender
>
> The older (problematic) def
If the postmaster address is excluded from spam checks then you
may want to change the address_verify_sender setting.
The current default is:
address_verify_sender = $double_bounce_sender
The older (problematic) default is
address_verify_sender = postmaster
The final ultimate fix is to m
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:32 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
>
> > Thanks for suggestion, I'll apply it.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > But if somebody can help discover (configuration) error which
> > prioritizing postmaster that would be nice.
>
> "pos
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 8:04 AM:
> Thanks for suggestion, I'll apply it.
You're welcome.
> But if somebody can help discover (configuration) error which
> prioritizing postmaster that would be nice.
"postconf -d | grep mail_version" might be helpful. IIRC some early versions
В Чтв, 10/06/2010 в 08:01 -0500, Stan Hoeppner пишет:
> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 4:15 AM:
>
> I'd attack the problem from another angle. You may be better served by adding
> some more dnsbl checks rather that fighting spoofs:
> http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=black
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 6/10/2010 4:15 AM:
I'd attack the problem from another angle. You may be better served by adding
some more dnsbl checks rather that fighting spoofs:
http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a111.67.207.126
As you can see the IP sample you gave is
Hi, I'm new to this list.
I have postfix mail server with spam/virus protection running for many
years. All works fine except for some kind of spam still getting
through.
After a review I found out that almost all of that spam is mail from
spoofed freemain domains. After some googling I found and
20 matches
Mail list logo
