/dev/rob0 a écrit :
> On Sunday 01 November 2009 12:24:54 mouss wrote:
>> Simon Morvan a écrit :
>>> Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
[snip]
Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
which has been very effective here.
>>> The last time I tried
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009, Simon Morvan wrote:
[blah blah]
> And how am I supposed to send mail from my own mail server if I
> don't trust my ISP mail relay nor have $$$ to have a colo space and
> my own IP space ?
>
> And, Stan, you refuse mails from my ISP mail relay... (the second
> biggest in Fran
On Sunday 01 November 2009 12:24:54 mouss wrote:
> Simon Morvan a écrit :
> > Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
> >> which has been very effective here.
> >
> > The last time I tried it, Zen included too
Simon Morvan a écrit :
> Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
>>[snip]
>>>
>> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
>> which has been very effective here.
>>
>>
> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
> ADSL lines. The "P
- Original Message
> From: Simon Morvan
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Sun, November 1, 2009 2:37:14 PM
> Subject: Re: smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluation question
>
> Daniel V. Reinhardt a écrit :
> > - Original Message
> >
Daniel V. Reinhardt a écrit :
- Original Message
From: Stan Hoeppner
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Sun, November 1, 2009 1:00:30 PM
Subject: smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluation question
Simon Morvan put forth on 11/1/2009 4:20 AM:
That's prevent rejectio
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:00:30 -0600
Stan Hoeppner replied:
[snip]
>Net Neutrality has nothing to do with SMTP receivers. It has
>everything to do with network carriers and QOS. You have no inherent
>right to send email to _my_ MX, nor anyone else's. Your rights end
>where mine begin.
> If I ch
- Original Message
> From: Stan Hoeppner
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Sun, November 1, 2009 1:00:30 PM
> Subject: smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluation question
>
> Simon Morvan put forth on 11/1/2009 4:20 AM:
>
> > That's prevent rejec
Simon Morvan put forth on 11/1/2009 4:20 AM:
> That's prevent rejection but also prevent my ability to ensure my
> freedom to use the network :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
>
> That's will be my last message on-list for this topic but feel free to
> keep on discuss this off-l
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Simon Morvan put forth on 10/31/2009 12:30 PM:
And why shouldn't be able to use my own mail server behind my private
residential ADSL line ?
You should be able to. Here's how to implement the outbound mail
portion to prevent mass rejections:
http://www.hardwa
Simon Morvan put forth on 10/31/2009 12:30 PM:
> And why shouldn't be able to use my own mail server behind my private
> residential ADSL line ?
You should be able to. Here's how to implement the outbound mail
portion to prevent mass rejections:
http://www.hardwarefreak.com/postfix-adsl-relay-c
Mikael Bak a écrit :
Larry Stone wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
Simon Morvan wrote:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Larry Stone wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
>
>> Simon Morvan wrote:
>>> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
>>> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
>>> changed, I'll give it another try.
>>
>> Can you please te
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
Simon Morvan wrote:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Can you please tell me why an ADSL user would send legit
Simon Morvan put forth on 10/30/2009 10:39 AM:
> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
> changed, I'll give it another try.
Would you please elaborate a bit on this? Most of the listings in
On 10/30/2009 2:28 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 10/30/2009 2:23 PM:
I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
needs to implement depends on whether one uses local deliver?
Should have proofread that... I meant I do not have
reject_unlisted_re
Stan Hoeppner:
> I only have reject_unauth_destination on my relay-only server, and
> sending to an invalid recipient address returns:
>
> 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown
> in relay recipient table
>
> I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
> ne
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 10/30/2009 2:23 PM:
> I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
> needs to implement depends on whether one uses local deliver?
Should have proofread that... I meant I do not have
reject_unlisted_recipient defined. However, the docs say it's
Markus Schönhaber put forth on 10/30/2009 10:05 AM:
> Simon Morvan:
>
>> I notice that event if the recipient address doesn't exists, the
>> check_policy_service (greylist) got evaluated, causing higher load than
>> needed. Isn't reject_unauth_destination there to block inexistent
>> recipients
Simon Morvan wrote:
>> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
>> which has been very effective here.
>>
> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
> changed, I'll
Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
On Friday 30 October 2009 09:52:44 Simon Morvan wrote:
Hello folks,
I've got some checks setup like that :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown
On Friday 30 October 2009 09:52:44 Simon Morvan wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I've got some checks setup like that :
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>reject_non_fqdn_sender,
>reject_unknown_sender_domain,
>reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
>reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
>permit_mynet
Simon Morvan:
> I notice that event if the recipient address doesn't exists, the
> check_policy_service (greylist) got evaluated, causing higher load than
> needed. Isn't reject_unauth_destination there to block inexistent
> recipients ?
No, that's what reject_unlisted_recipient is for.
--
R
Hello folks,
I've got some checks setup like that :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
reject_
24 matches
Mail list logo
