Jose Borges Ferreira:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > When you follow the include: directives you get lists of net/mask
> > forms that are easy to convert to postscreen.
> >
> > $ host -t txt spf1.amazon.com | tr ' ' '\12' | sed -n '/^ip.:/{
> > s/^ip.:\(.*
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> When you follow the include: directives you get lists of net/mask
> forms that are easy to convert to postscreen.
>
> $ host -t txt spf1.amazon.com | tr ' ' '\12' | sed -n '/^ip.:/{
> s/^ip.:\(.*\)/\1 permit/
> p
> }'
On September 16, 2014 2:03:36 PM Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 16.09.2014 um 13:41 schrieb Uwe Drießen:
> E-Mail is not real time communication by design !
the problem is ,users are ignorant to this *g
Never seen a time limithed offer ?
fix-users@postfix.org
>> Betreff: Re: postscreen deep protocol tests and Amazon timeouts
>>
>> On 15 Sep 2014, at 14:31 , Andrew J. Schorr > investments.com> wrote:
>>> I could be wrong, but if greylisting works reliably,
>>
>> And there we get to t
Am 16.09.2014 um 13:41 schrieb Uwe Drießen:
> E-Mail is not real time communication by design !
the problem is ,users are ignorant to this *g
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Mün
Am 16.09.2014 um 13:41 schrieb Uwe Drießen:
>> just not how email works for large senders.
>
> If my Server had a problem the big sender becomes the
> same error like greylisting
no, because he just tries later or another MX
> If the big sender can not handle it they breaks the RFC not I.
> T
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] Im Auftrag von LuKreme
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. September 2014 12:48
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: postscreen deep protocol tests and Amazon t
Am 16.09.2014 um 12:47 schrieb LuKreme:
> On 15 Sep 2014, at 14:31 , Andrew J. Schorr
> wrote:
>> I could be wrong, but if greylisting works reliably,
>
> And there we get to the root of the problem. It does not work reliably
> because it ignores how large companies like Google and Yahoo and Am
On 15 Sep 2014, at 14:31 , Andrew J. Schorr
wrote:
> I could be wrong, but if greylisting works reliably,
And there we get to the root of the problem. It does not work reliably because
it ignores how large companies like Google and Yahoo and Amazon send mail.
Greylisting, *BY DESIGN* screws up
Andrew J. Schorr:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > A possible option is to periodically grab the SPF records of Amazon,
> > Google, and the like, and to whitelist those IP addresses permanently.
>
> I had been hoping that the whitelisting would obviate the need to do
> something like this. Perhaps with
Am 15.09.2014 um 22:31 schrieb Andrew J. Schorr:
> li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> what i recently implemented was
>> * give thx MX a second IP
>> * add it everywehere as backup-mx
>> * disable postcreen WL on that IP
>
> I am doing the same thing here. It is helpful, but I don't think it solves all
li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> what i recently implemented was
> * give thx MX a second IP
> * add it everywehere as backup-mx
> * disable postcreen WL on that IP
I am doing the same thing here. It is helpful, but I don't think it solves all
problems. The implicit greylisting of the deep protocol test
Wietse Venema wrote:
> A possible option is to periodically grab the SPF records of Amazon,
> Google, and the like, and to whitelist those IP addresses permanently.
I had been hoping that the whitelisting would obviate the need to do
something like this. Perhaps with the extra whitelists that I a
Andrew J. Schorr:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > As long as the SMTP session still exists, the client may still make
> > a mistake, and postscreen will not whitelist it.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I am surprised that Amazon's mailservers are so
> stupid.
>
> > Don't use deep protocol tests if t
Am 15.09.2014 um 18:19 schrieb Andrew J. Schorr:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>> As long as the SMTP session still exists, the client may still make
>> a mistake, and postscreen will not whitelist it.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I am surprised that Amazon's mailservers are so
> stupid.
>
>> Don't
Wietse Venema wrote:
> As long as the SMTP session still exists, the client may still make
> a mistake, and postscreen will not whitelist it.
Thanks for the explanation. I am surprised that Amazon's mailservers are so
stupid.
> Don't use deep protocol tests if they cause problems. These tests
>
Andrew J. Schorr:
> Hi,
>
> I enabled postscreen deep protocol tests in postfix 2.11.1 and found this
> problem with Amazon. I see these entries in the log:
>
> Sep 14 12:41:45 ti74 postfix/postscreen[18143]: [ID info] CONNECT from
> [54.240.13.2]:36074 to [38.76.0.61]:25
> Sep 14 12:41:51 ti74
Hi,
I enabled postscreen deep protocol tests in postfix 2.11.1 and found this
problem with Amazon. I see these entries in the log:
Sep 14 12:41:45 ti74 postfix/postscreen[18143]: [ID info] CONNECT from
[54.240.13.2]:36074 to [38.76.0.61]:25
Sep 14 12:41:51 ti74 postfix/postscreen[18143]: [ID in
18 matches
Mail list logo
