On 7/7/2011 7:37 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> I'm currently using Stan's pcre file with check_client_access. But
> even after re-reading this while thread and that doc link, I can't
> tell whether I should keep it as-is or switch to
> check_reverse_client_hostname_access.
>
> SteveJ
Yes, absolutely
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/7/2011 3:42 PM, mouss wrote:
>
>>
>> Noel, are you telling me that check_reverse... will match the client IP?
>> my understanding is that it will only match against the PTR.
>
> It's even documented.
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#
On 7/7/2011 10:14 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 08:24:42AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 7/7/2011 7:48 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> The anchors at both ends mean you are saf
On 7/7/2011 3:42 PM, mouss wrote:
>
> Noel, are you telling me that check_reverse... will match the client IP?
> my understanding is that it will only match against the PTR.
It's even documented.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#check_reverse_client_hostname_access
And I can say with auth
Le 07/07/2011 22:48, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:35:56PM +0200, mouss wrote:
>
>> /^[0-9\.]$/
>> is equivalent to
>> any string formed with digits and/or dots
>
> No, just any single character that is a digit or ".". You left off the
> "*" or "+" to make it a strin
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:35:56PM +0200, mouss wrote:
> /^[0-9\.]$/
> is equivalent to
> any string formed with digits and/or dots
No, just any single character that is a digit or ".". You left off the
"*" or "+" to make it a string composed of one (or zero) or more of said.
> with pcre;
Le 06/07/2011 23:14, Noel Jones a écrit :
> On 7/6/2011 3:57 PM, mouss wrote:
>> Le 06/07/2011 22:52, Noel Jones a écrit :
>>> On 7/6/2011 3:44 PM, mouss wrote:
Le 06/07/2011 07:07, Simon Deziel a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I
Le 07/07/2011 13:44, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:36:02AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> I received a request to ignore IPv4 addresses as well in order to
>>> improve performance. But given the extensive IF loops it seems
>>> we'd
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 08:24:42AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/7/2011 7:48 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> >>> The anchors at both ends mean you are safe. You start with ^
> >>> and end with $,
On 7/7/2011 7:48 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> The anchors at both ends mean you are safe. You start with ^ and
>>> end with $, so nothing else can sneak in between those.
>>>
>>> A simpler express
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 06:44:49AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > The anchors at both ends mean you are safe. You start with ^ and
> > end with $, so nothing else can sneak in between those.
> >
> > A simpler expression to accomplish the same thing:
> >
On 7/7/2011 5:58 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:36:02AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I received a request to ignore IPv4 addresses as well in order to
>> improve performance. But given the extensive IF loops it seems
>> we'd only save something like a few picoseconds of CPU
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:36:02AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I received a request to ignore IPv4 addresses as well in order to
> improve performance. But given the extensive IF loops it seems
> we'd only save something like a few picoseconds of CPU time (<30
> expressions processed). If th
On 7/6/2011 12:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Some table types such as CIDR ignore the domain name. With table
> types such as CIDR, regexp and pcre, check_client_access does no
> prefix/suffix lookups.
>
> Given this, a pcre rule with ``/:/ DUNNO'' is sufficient to skip
> IPv6 addresses.
Thanks
On 7/6/2011 3:57 PM, mouss wrote:
> Le 06/07/2011 22:52, Noel Jones a écrit :
>> On 7/6/2011 3:44 PM, mouss wrote:
>>> Le 06/07/2011 07:07, Simon Deziel a écrit :
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems receiving emails from with
Le 06/07/2011 22:52, Noel Jones a écrit :
> On 7/6/2011 3:44 PM, mouss wrote:
>> Le 06/07/2011 07:07, Simon Deziel a écrit :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
>>> problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
>>
>> replace
>> check
On 7/6/2011 3:44 PM, mouss wrote:
> Le 06/07/2011 07:07, Simon Deziel a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
>> problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
>
> replace
> check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/fqrdns.pcre
> wit
Le 06/07/2011 15:13, Noel Jones a écrit :
> On 7/6/2011 2:32 AM, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:05AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems
Le 06/07/2011 07:07, Simon Deziel a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
> problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
replace
check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/fqrdns.pcre
with
check_reverse_client_hostname_acce
On 7/6/2011 12:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Given this, a pcre rule with ``/:/ DUNNO'' is sufficient to skip
> IPv6 addresses.
>
> Wietse
Thanks.
-- Noel Jones
On 7/6/2011 8:15 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 03:32 AM, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:05AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
proble
On 07/06/2011 09:13 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/6/2011 2:32 AM, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:05AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems
On 07/06/2011 03:32 AM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:05AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
>>> problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
>>>
>
On 7/6/2011 2:32 AM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:05AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
>>> problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
>>>
>>>
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 12:38:05AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
> > problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
> >
> > Jul 4 05:19:10 mx postfix/smtpd[10191
On 7/6/2011 12:07 AM, Simon Deziel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
> problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
>
> Jul 4 05:19:10 mx postfix/smtpd[10191]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail.python.org[2001:888:2000:d::a6]: 554
Hi all,
Since I started using Stan's fqrdns.pcre file to reduce spam I have some
problems receiving emails from with IPv6 clients.
Jul 4 05:19:10 mx postfix/smtpd[10191]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail.python.org[2001:888:2000:d::a6]: 554
: Client host rejected: Generic -
Please relay via ISP;
27 matches
Mail list logo
