Jorge Bastos via Postfix-users:
> Hi thanks,
>
> even with:
>
> echo -e "action=DUNNO\n"
>
> it fails with the same reason
Postfix logging? See: https://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
DO NOT turn on debug logging with '-v' options in master.cf.
What happens when you replace th
Hi thanks,
even with:
echo -e "action=DUNNO\n"
it fails with the same reason
On 2025-05-17 19:45, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
https://pastebin.com/gMrRx9Ny
https://pastebin.com/xX1hj38H
First,
echo -e "action=DUNNO\n\n"
will send THREE newline characters, and will therefore
Jorge Bastos via Postfix-users:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I'm having an issue with my:
>
> check_policy_service unix:private/policy-dnswl
>
> That has the information bellow, I've been looking at the docs for two
> weeks and cant figure why action=DUNNO still gives me
ation bellow, I've been looking at the docs for two
weeks and cant figure why action=DUNNO still gives me the server
configuration error.
Here's my script and smtpd_recipient_restriction,
What am I doing wrong in the DUNNO part?
Thanks in advanced,
https://pastebin.com/gMrRx9Ny
https
Hi Guys,
I'm having an issue with my:
check_policy_service unix:private/policy-dnswl
That has the information bellow, I've been looking at the docs for two
weeks and cant figure why action=DUNNO still gives me the server
configuration error.
Here's my script and smtpd_recipi
On 22.08.19 09:47, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I have upgraded debian 8 (postfix 2.11) to debian 9 (postfix 3.1) on a
mailserver.
Now, whenever user who has utf-8 character in /etc/passwd as part of their
username, has to receive mail, postfix outputs:
451 4.3.5 Server configuration error
Hello,
I have upgraded debian 8 (postfix 2.11) to debian 9 (postfix 3.1) on a
mailserver.
Now, whenever user who has utf-8 character in /etc/passwd as part of their
username, has to receive mail, postfix outputs:
451 4.3.5 Server configuration error
there are many users who have utf-8
allback postfix/smtpd[7187]: warning: use DUNNO instead
> of OK if you want to make an exception
> Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/smtpd[7187]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> unknown[192.168.xxx.xxx]:53698: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error;
This patch applies to Postfix 3.0 and later.
On 14.11.17 20:02, liquid cooled wrote:
The problem is as follows:
A spammer is using an ip address which hast thousands of domains
registered, the apammer uses a botnet to send from his domains but from
many different source ips.
don't you want to use check_sender_a_access instead?
last time w
Thats totally true,
i i have to deal with listings of my ip addresses on blacklists very often.
Yes the hops which are affected here are:
Sieve generates the forwarded mail, one of the postfix mta-out hosts
tries to deliver it and fails generating the Mailer-Daemon which also
fails to get delive
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 2:02 PM, liquid cooled wrote:
>
> A spammer is using an ip address which hast thousands of domains registered,
> the apammer uses a botnet to send from his domains but from many different
> source ips.
> My customers then receive the spams and a lot of them have forward
The problem is as follows:
A spammer is using an ip address which hast thousands of domains
registered, the apammer uses a botnet to send from his domains but from
many different source ips.
My customers then receive the spams and a lot of them have forward anything
rules, the new generated forward
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> Usually (almost always) REJECT is a more appropriate action for
> unwanted mail. Is there some reason you can't use REJECT until this
> is fixed?
>
> I guess you're using this to trap mail your users send to bad/typo
> domains eg. hotmal.co
Usually (almost always) REJECT is a more appropriate action for
unwanted mail. Is there some reason you can't use REJECT until this
is fixed?
I guess you're using this to trap mail your users send to bad/typo
domains eg. hotmal.com? In that case, REJECT would be better to
notify the user of thei
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 07:11:03PM +0100, flowhosts wrote:
> Yes this is such a decent feature!
> I use it with the hold action now as this doesn't break things.
> So bad domains (in my case) which would never accept mails are now kept in
> place, i call it the bad destination hold quarantine.
> L
Yes this is such a decent feature!
I use it with the hold action now as this doesn't break things.
So bad domains (in my case) which would never accept mails are now kept
in place, i call it the bad destination hold quarantine.
Looking forward to massive discarding soon :)
@Noel Jones, thanks!
On 14 Nov 2017, at 05:00, flowhosts wrote:
> # main.cf
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> reject_non_fqdn_sender
> ...
> check_recipient_a_access hash:/etc/postfix/lookup/recipient_a_access
> ...
> permit
>
> # cat /etc/postfix/lookup/recipient_a_access
> 1
tfix/smtpd[7187]: warning: use DUNNO
> instead of OK if you want to make an exception
> Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/smtpd[7187]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> from unknown[192.168.xxx.xxx]:53698: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
> error; from=<> to= proto=ESMTP
> helo=
> Nov 14 10:53:
Hello,
as described in the subject i tried to implement the new feature
check_recipient_a_access
I have encountered a strange error or maybe an bug.
The following settings result in an correct action follwed by an "4.3.5
Server configuration error" response.
>> They are, look like this in main.cf
>>
>> # OpenDKIM
>> milter_default_action = accept
>> milter_protocol = 6
>> smtpd_milters = local:/opendkim/opendkim.sock
>> non_smtpd_milters = $smtpd_milters
>
> Each parameter definition must start in the *first*
> column of its text line. See
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Daniel Armando Rodriguez
> wrote:
>
> They are, look like this in main.cf
>
> # OpenDKIM
> milter_default_action = accept
> milter_protocol = 6
> smtpd_milters = local:/opendkim/opendkim.sock
> non_smtpd_milters = $smtpd_milters
Each parameter definitio
2017-08-30 10:16 GMT-03:00 Christian Kivalo :
>
>
> On 2017-08-30 15:07, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2017-08-30 14:51, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
Hi, I'm getting such message logged after the warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: "milter_default_action"
>>>
>>>
On 2017-08-30 15:07, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
On 2017-08-30 14:51, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
Hi, I'm getting such message logged after the warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: "milter_default_action"
Note that options in master.cf are without spaces around the "=".
yep
All i
> On 2017-08-30 14:51, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I'm getting such message logged after the warning: unknown smtpd
>> restriction: "milter_default_action"
>
> Note that options in master.cf are without spaces around the "=".
yep
>> All incoming mail is rejected.
>>
>> What I'm tryi
On 2017-08-30 14:51, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote:
Hi, I'm getting such message logged after the warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: "milter_default_action"
Note that options in master.cf are without spaces around the "=".
All incoming mail is rejected.
What I'm trying to achieve is to ge
Hi, I'm getting such message logged after the warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: "milter_default_action"
All incoming mail is rejected.
What I'm trying to achieve is to get dkim validation working,
following this guide
https://wiki.debian.org/opendkim
regards in advance
Dino Edwards:
> Hello,
>
> Having a strange issue with a server. Multiple times a day I get the
> following errors in mail.log:
>
> 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error; from=
> to= proto=ESMTP helo=
The error is logged BEFORE this line.
Wietse
Hello,
Having a strange issue with a server. Multiple times a day I get the following
errors in mail.log:
451 4.3.5 Server configuration error; from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
I also get the following email in my admin mailbox:
From: Mail Delivery System
Subject: Postfix SMTP server: errors
Certainly, I have already corrected them
Thanks for all Postfix Family
2017-03-19 11:26 GMT-04:00 Viktor Dukhovni :
>
> > On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Wietse Venema
> wrote:
> >
> > There are some other typos as well - multiple reject_rbl_client.
>
> And bare RBL domain names with no reject_rb
> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> There are some other typos as well - multiple reject_rbl_client.
And bare RBL domain names with no reject_rbl_client or similar.
--
Viktor.
lestraw:
> Mar 18 21:03:27 server postfix/smtpd[26211]: warning: unknown smtpd
> restriction: "combined.rbl.msrbl.net"
You forgot to have 'reject_rbl_client' before 'combined.rbl.msrbl.net'
> smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks permit_inet_interfaces
> permit_tls_all_clientcerts reject_
*Problem solved
*
It turns out that in *smtpd_client_restrictions =*
I was missing the *permit_sasl_authenticated sentence*
Thanks for everything
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/NOQUEUE-reject-451-4-3-5-Server-configuration-error-tp89530p89536.html
]: warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: "combined.rbl.msrbl.net"
*Mar 18 21:03:27 server postfix/smtpd[26211]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[DDD.D.DDD.DDD]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error;
from= to= proto=ESMTP
helo=<[DD.D.D.DD]>*
Mar 18 21:03:27 server postfix/smtpd[28381]: lost
lestraw:
> Hi postfix familiy,
>
> I'm using thunderbird as a email client, and when sending an email is giving
> me the following error on /var/log/maillog:
>
> Mar 18 19:54:39 server postfix/smtpd[21712]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> unknown[DDD.D.DDD.DDD]: 451 4.3.5
Hi postfix familiy,
I'm using thunderbird as a email client, and when sending an email is giving
me the following error on /var/log/maillog:
Mar 18 19:54:39 server postfix/smtpd[21712]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[DDD.D.DDD.DDD]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error;
from= to= proto=
lestraw:
> Hello Postfix Familty,
>
> I have configured it according to the postfix manuals a Postfix SASL e-mail
> server with Dovecot. And I'm having the following error, when I'm going to
> send an email from a client
>
> *451 4.3.5 Server configuration err
Hello Postfix Familty,
I have configured it according to the postfix manuals a Postfix SASL e-mail
server with Dovecot. And I'm having the following error, when I'm going to
send an email from a client
*451 4.3.5 Server configuration error *
Postfix version 2.6.6 + Dovecot Ver
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ian Evans:
> > > First. the script should limit the time for DNS lookups.
> > >
> > > Second, the script should not die after BrokenPipeError exceptions.
> > >
> > > try: sys.stdout.flush()
> > > except BrokenPipeError: pass
> > >
> > Again,
Ian Evans:
> > First. the script should limit the time for DNS lookups.
> >
> > Second, the script should not die after BrokenPipeError exceptions.
> >
> > try: sys.stdout.flush()
> > except BrokenPipeError: pass
> >
> Again, since I'm tired, I just want to be sure I understand...are you
> suggesti
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ian Evans:
> > Aug 26 08:34:05 carson postfix/smtpd[16374]: warning: problem talking to
> server private/policy-spf: Connection timed out
>
> This Postfix SMTP server time limit is specified with the
> smtpd_policy_service_timeout parameter
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ian Evans:
> > Aug 26 08:34:05 carson postfix/smtpd[16374]: warning: problem talking to
> server private/policy-spf: Connection timed out
>
> This Postfix SMTP server time limit is specified with the
> smtpd_policy_service_timeout parameter
Ian Evans:
> Aug 26 08:34:05 carson postfix/smtpd[16374]: warning: problem talking to
> server private/policy-spf: Connection timed out
This Postfix SMTP server time limit is specified with the
smtpd_policy_service_timeout parameter (default: 100s).
Your SPF script should reply in 10 seconds at
d[27028]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> > mail-ig0-f175.google.com[209.85.213.175]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
> > problem; from= to= proto=ESMTP
> > helo=
>
Have very tired eyes today (up all night doing Emmy coverage) but there
seems to be some issue with:
Aug 26 08:34:
ssage.
>
> Before the line below, my friend's emails pass spf successfully. This is
> what's showing up in the logs:
>
>
> Aug 25 05:24:27 carson postfix/smtpd[27028]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail-ig0-f175.google.com[209.85.213.175]: 451 4.3.5 Server configurat
y friend's emails pass spf successfully. This is
what's showing up in the logs:
Aug 25 05:24:27 carson postfix/smtpd[27028]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail-ig0-f175.google.com[209.85.213.175]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
problem; from= to= proto=ESMTP
helo=
I don't want to go
Shoot me twice:-) It was an "OK" statement written with Cyrillic
characters. Impossible to spot at a glance.
Thanks for the help!
On 31.03.2014 14:55, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:17:07AM +0300, Stefan Stefanov wrote:
1314:Mar 17 15:02:21 Server postfix/smtpd[1324]: Anon
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:17:07AM +0300, Stefan Stefanov wrote:
> 1314:Mar 17 15:02:21 Server postfix/smtpd[1324]: Anonymous TLS connection
> established from unknown[113.11.251.194]: TLSv1.2 with cipher
> ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)
> 1315:Mar 17 15:02:22 Server postfix/smtpd[1324
Stefan Stefanov:
> 1315:Mar 17 15:02:22 Server postfix/smtpd[1324]: warning: unknown smtpd
> restriction: ""
It is staring you in the face.
Wietse
nection established from unknown[113.11.251.194]: TLSv1.2 with cipher
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)
1315:Mar 17 15:02:22 Server postfix/smtpd[1324]: warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: ""
1316:Mar 17 15:02:22 Server postfix/smtpd[1324]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown
nection established from unknown[113.11.251.194]: TLSv1.2 with cipher
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)
1315:Mar 17 15:02:22 Server postfix/smtpd[1324]: warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: ""
1316:Mar 17 15:02:22 Server postfix/smtpd[1324]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown
On 3/13/2014 4:45 PM, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Noel Jones!
>
> Thank you for the reply, Noel.
> I'm not seeing my own message sent to the list, is this normal?
Maybe the amavis-users list server is filtering your mail. I don't
recall seeing any from you either.
Note some mail systems, no
Greetings, Noel Jones!
Thank you for the reply, Noel.
I'm not seeing my own message sent to the list, is this normal?
>> At this moment, I have a working prototype of our organization's mail server,
>> but I'm lacking some final touches on it, and would like to have some advice.
>>
>> The server
On 3/13/2014 2:43 PM, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, All!
>
> At this moment, I have a working prototype of our organization's mail server,
> but I'm lacking some final touches on it, and would like to have some advice.
>
> The server suite consists of
>
> postfix
> dovecot
> PAM auth
> OpenLD
Greetings, All!
At this moment, I have a working prototype of our organization's mail server,
but I'm lacking some final touches on it, and would like to have some advice.
The server suite consists of
postfix
dovecot
PAM auth
OpenLDAP backend behind that one.
amavisd-new with it's own suite of
e server. I run a similar configuration with no issues.
>> When
>> DocuSign sends us a message, the maillog has this in it:
>>
>> Oct 29 12:09:32 saguarogold postfix/smtpd[10387]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
>> from mailch.docusign.net[206.25.247.155]: 451 4.3.5 Server
>&g
arogold postfix/smtpd[10387]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> from mailch.docusign.net[206.25.247.155]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
> problem; from= to= proto=ESMTP
> helo=
Look in your logs. The interesting entry is somewhere proceeding
the entry you show here.
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.
]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from mailch.docusign.net[206.25.247.155]: 451 4.3.5 Server
configuration
problem; from= to=
proto=ESMTP
helo=
check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:6
is that service running ?
and postfix is very old and outdated
[206.25.247.155]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
problem; from= to= proto=ESMTP
helo=
Odd thing is that an identical server which has Eudora Internet Mail
Server on it, receives similar emails from them fine. Here is the result
of postconf -n. Not sure what the issue is. Perhaps its staring me in
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:36:30PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > The blog recommends at least one of "smtp[d]_tls_loglevel = 2",
> > this is unwise except when debugging.
>
> On a low traffic server?
Even on a low traffic server the voluminous TLS logging just obfuscates
the useful content
* Viktor Dukhovni :
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:26:25PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> > > Anyone has tested such server in real life ?
> > >
> > > http://sealedabstract.com/code/nsa-proof-your-e-mail-in-2-hours/
> >
> > I finally got around reading this.
> > I wonder if it should be more s
On Sep 11, 2013, at 21:52, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:39:57PM +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>
>>> This is more reasonable, provided systems you send mail to all
>>> support TLSv1 and up. What fraction of outbound handshakes end up
>>> with SSLv3?
>>
>> Outbound is an e
On Sep 11, 2013, at 21:37, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:12:40PM +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>
>> The reasoning was that accepting SSLv3/RC4-MD5 connections from systems
>> for which that is apparently the maximum they can support, even today,
>> constitutes a false sen
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:39:57PM +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> > This is more reasonable, provided systems you send mail to all
> > support TLSv1 and up. What fraction of outbound handshakes end up
> > with SSLv3?
>
> Outbound is an even smaller percentage of total TLS connections
> establis
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:03:52PM +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> >> The odd thing is that both banks drop to RC4-MD5 when sending to
> >> us. I've seen this on another product that we support ourselves as
> >> well; the Postfix client negotiates a higher protocol level and
> >> better cipher for
On Sep 11, 2013, at 17:24, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> May do the same for outgoing connections.
>
> This is more reasonable, provided systems you send mail to all
> support TLSv1 and up. What fraction of outbound handshakes end up
> with SSLv3?
Outbound is an even smaller percentage of total TL
On Sep 11, 2013, at 17:24, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 04:57:01PM +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>
>>> SSLv3 is already disabled in Postfix 2.11 when the remote server
>>> is authenticated via DNSSEC DANE TLSA records, because in this case
>>> the Postfix SMTP client needs to
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:12:40PM +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> > This is counter-productive. You get TLSv1 whenever the client supports
> > it, so rejecting SSLv3 at the server does not improve security.
>
> It rejects the systems that only support SSLv3, does it not? Or am I
> understandin
On Sep 11, 2013, at 16:34, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:26:25PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
>>> Anyone has tested such server in real life ?
>>>
>>> http://sealedabstract.com/code/nsa-proof-your-e-mail-in-2-hours/
>>
>> I finally got around reading this.
>>
>> I wo
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:26:25PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > Anyone has tested such server in real life ?
> >
> > http://sealedabstract.com/code/nsa-proof-your-e-mail-in-2-hours/
>
> I finally got around reading this.
> I wonder if it should be more strict regaring the used ciphers (bot
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 04:57:01PM +0200, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> > SSLv3 is already disabled in Postfix 2.11 when the remote server
> > is authenticated via DNSSEC DANE TLSA records, because in this case
> > the Postfix SMTP client needs to send the SNI extension to the
> > server (just in case
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:26:25PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > Anyone has tested such server in real life ?
> >
> > http://sealedabstract.com/code/nsa-proof-your-e-mail-in-2-hours/
>
> I finally got around reading this.
>
> I wonder if it should be more strict regaring the used ciphers (b
* Frank Bonnet :
> Hello
>
> Anyone has tested such server in real life ?
>
> http://sealedabstract.com/code/nsa-proof-your-e-mail-in-2-hours/
I finally got around reading this.
I wonder if it should be more strict regaring the used ciphers (both
in Postfix and Dovecot), given that it's for self
On Sep 2, 2013, at 23:13, LuKreme wrote:
> For servers? Encrypting the drive on a always-on server seems a bit
> pointless. Once the machine is up and running, the drive is, as you said,
> unencrypted. However, if someone comes in to seize the machines, they will
> have to power them off and t
Am 02.09.2013 23:13, schrieb LuKreme:
> On 02 Sep 2013, at 15:02 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>> Am 02.09.2013 22:55, schrieb LuKreme:
>>> On 02 Sep 2013, at 07:10 , Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
Second, you'll need to encrypt your harddrive, which I doubt this whole
blog covers.
>>>
>>> E
On 02 Sep 2013, at 15:02 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.09.2013 22:55, schrieb LuKreme:
>> On 02 Sep 2013, at 07:10 , Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>>> Second, you'll need to encrypt your harddrive, which I doubt this whole
>>> blog covers.
>>
>> Encrypting your hard drive is trivial, at
Am 02.09.2013 22:55, schrieb LuKreme:
> On 02 Sep 2013, at 07:10 , Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> Second, you'll need to encrypt your harddrive, which I doubt this whole blog
>> covers.
>
> Encrypting your hard drive is trivial, at least in OS X and, I hear, even in
> Windows.
and after that?
Top-posting this once.
This is obnoxious. Stop it.
On 02 Sep 2013, at 07:35 , Bruce Markey wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> mQINBFIjp+0BEACohL2HkOtWdsFyR+PUltMawCIfXgo4JWYElCLKWSRdwy8H+z2/
> PmwHS2YMsNB5GX+jbv0m3EMJlqCZBRKXISeczFKSj/2Fit7
On 02 Sep 2013, at 07:10 , Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> Second, you'll need to encrypt your harddrive, which I doubt this whole blog
> covers.
Encrypting your hard drive is trivial, at least in OS X and, I hear, even in
Windows. I suspect it's more difficult in linux/freebsd, but I bet not much
On Sep 2, 2013, at 17:43, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2013-09-02 Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>> On 9/2/2013 9:35 AM, Bruce Markey wrote:
>>> The only way to "nsa proof" is to encrypt end to end with pgp.
> ^^^
>>> I run postfix with gpg-ma
On 2013-09-02 Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 9:35 AM, Bruce Markey wrote:
>> The only way to "nsa proof" is to encrypt end to end with pgp.
^^^
>> I run postfix with gpg-mailgate.
>> All incoming mail is encrypted with that users
On 9/2/2013 9:35 AM, Bruce Markey wrote:
The only way to "nsa proof" is to encrypt end to end with pgp.
I run postfix with gpg-mailgate.
All incoming mail is encrypted with that users public key as it comes
in for any mail that is not already encrypted client side using pgp.
This makes sense,
The only way to "nsa proof" is to encrypt end to end with pgp.
I run postfix with gpg-mailgate.
All incoming mail is encrypted with that users public key as it comes in
for any mail that is not already encrypted client side using pgp.
Bruce.
--
Please use PGP, ENCRYPT everything.
For informat
FWIW, I seen the url and stopped there. there is literally no way to
NSA-proof your email for a number of reasons:
First, email is sent cleartext. Even if you authenticate to send and you
authenticate to receive, it's going through servers cleartext. A tap
before your server is all it would take
Hello
Anyone has tested such server in real life ?
http://sealedabstract.com/code/nsa-proof-your-e-mail-in-2-hours/
Thank you
On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> That's postgrey. It's running, but bears looking into...
> connection refused suggests it's either not running or not the right
> port.
Postgrey wasn't running -- I misinterpreted ps. I put it in monit to be
restarted if it ever quits again. Th
tpd[17681]: warning: problem talking to server
>> 127.0.0.1:6: Connection refused
>
> entries. That's postgrey. It's running, but bears looking into...
>
connection refused suggests it's either not running or not the right
port.
At any rate, that's the s
On Oct 4, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Look in the log for more information.
> http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
Thanks, Noel. There were about 99 million:
> server postfix/smtpd[17681]: warning: problem talking to server
> 127.0.0.1:6: Connection refused
entries.
On 10/4/2011 9:54 AM, Glenn English wrote:
> I'm getting a huge amount of Server configuration problem rejects. But not
> all -- I receive from my own nets and some lists. postfix check says I'm OK
> (I don't know if it checks the configuration(s)), and postfix resta
On 10/4/2011 10:54 AM, Glenn English wrote:
I'm getting a huge amount of Server configuration problem rejects. But not all
-- I receive from my own nets and some lists. postfix check says I'm OK (I
don't know if it checks the configuration(s)), and postfix restarts without
co
I'm getting a huge amount of Server configuration problem rejects. But not all
-- I receive from my own nets and some lists. postfix check says I'm OK (I
don't know if it checks the configuration(s)), and postfix restarts without
complaint.
> root@server:/etc/po
You still don't understand. The problem isn't your Postfix MTA, but the
remote MTA. Send a similar email to one of these broken servers using a
Gmail account. You'll receive a bounce with the same message you pasted
here: "Server configuration problem".
The o
roblem lies
>>>> with my site. In the case of the example below, the message is delivered.
>>> SMTP is a client-server protocol.
>>>
>>> When sending mail, Postfix is the SMTP client.
>>>
>>> When receiving mail, Postfix is the SMTP server.
&
ivered.
>> SMTP is a client-server protocol.
>>
>> When sending mail, Postfix is the SMTP client.
>>
>> When receiving mail, Postfix is the SMTP server.
>>
>> When the SMTP server replies with "server configuration error" then
>> the SMTP
client.
>
> When receiving mail, Postfix is the SMTP server.
>
> When the SMTP server replies with "server configuration error" then
> the SMTP server has a problem.
>
> Wietse
Thank-you Wietse.
Thus, the problem is my broken server. Next step is to work out where
ple of sites, hence I wonder if the problem lies
> with my site. In the case of the example below, the message is delivered.
SMTP is a client-server protocol.
When sending mail, Postfix is the SMTP client.
When receiving mail, Postfix is the SMTP server.
When the SMTP server replies with &qu
167] said: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
> problem (in reply to RCPT TO command))
if you get from a remote host "said: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration problem"
this message says clearly that the remite host has a configuration problem
and this has nothing to do with you
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
1, dsn=4.3.5, status=deferred (host
mail.gigahost.dk[89.186.169.167] said: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
problem (in reply to RCPT TO command))
Sep 12 18:08:52 logout postfix/qmgr[12672]: 91545817DA:
from=, size=31400, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Sep 12 18:08:53 logout postfix/smtp[28548]: 91545817DA
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Gary Smith wrote:
>> What about avoid the NOQUEUE error on the smtp server when policy
>> service is down? I mean, queue all mail until the policy server is UP
>> again. Is it possible?
>
> That defeats the use of the policy server. The purpose of the policy serv
> What about avoid the NOQUEUE error on the smtp server when policy
> service is down? I mean, queue all mail until the policy server is UP
> again. Is it possible?
That defeats the use of the policy server. The purpose of the policy server is
to help determine if it should be queued or rejected
16:43:17 server postfix/smtpd[23075]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from localhost.domain[127.0.0.1]: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration
problem; from=to=proto=SMTP
helo=
How can I ignore the policy server if it's down? Any suggest to my
server config?
There is no config directive to ignore a b
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
