Adam Weremczuk via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-02-19 15:26:
Now, how do I restrict this relay to only be used by one specific LAN
address or one specific LAN subnet?
All other SMTP traffic should continue using the defaults already in
place.
make another smtp in master.cf
mail.example.org
I'm running an old Postfix server v2.9.2 on Debian.
I'd like to test relaying selected messages (only) through an external
provider (fastmail.com).
My understanding it that I need to:
1. Create SMTP credentials with Fastmail
2. Create /etc/postfix/sasl_passwd
[smtp.fastmail.com]:5
On 28.02.24 21:31, Scott Techlist via Postfix-users wrote:
As I understand from your explanation, if I keep my
parent_domain_matches_subdomains = smtpd_access_maps
Then the preceding dot format is moot/not needed. Only
outbound.protection.outlook.com OK
I recommend keeping pare
Noel:
As I understand from your explanation, if I keep my
parent_domain_matches_subdomains = smtpd_access_maps
Then the preceding dot format is moot/not needed. Only
outbound.protection.outlook.com OK
Check.
>The reason it doesn't work is you're confusing sender and client.
In
>>reject_unauth_destination
>>...
>>check_sender_access hash:/pathname
>>reject_rbl_client example.com
>>...
>>
>>Or ???
>>
>>Where the table returns OK for the allowlisted domain.
>>
>> Wietse
>
>
>I
>> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks,
>
>That directive checks the email address which is used in the SMTP MAIL
>FROM command.
>
>I believe you need to use check_client_access to check the verified
>client hostname instead of check_sender_access.
>
>
Bill & Noel, thank you both f
h:/pathname
>reject_rbl_client example.com
>...
>
>Or ???
>
>Where the table returns OK for the allowlisted domain.
>
> Wietse
I'm always apprehensive when you answer .
I think I've misunderstood client and sender, I added the test to my
chec
>I can tell you there is significant spam from that Microsoft IP space. That
>spamcop doesn't have false positives, but rather due to >the sharing of IP
>space, senders that aren't spammers get tarred with the same brush as the
>spammers. I did a grep on the maillog >files and that is a firehos
I can tell you there is significant spam from that Microsoft IP space. That
spamcop doesn't have false positives, but rather due to the sharing of IP
space, senders that aren't spammers get tarred with the same brush as the
spammers. I did a grep on the maillog files and that is a firehose of s
nd.protection.outlook.com'
hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
(does not match)
postmap -q 'outbound.protection.outlook.com'
hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
OK #(matches)
As documented, postmap is a simple test tool and does not do any
automatic parent or
l-mw2nam10on2100.outbound.protection.outlook.com'
hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
(does not match)
postmap -q 'outbound.protection.outlook.com'
hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
OK #(matches)
In any case, what I'm doing does not prevent the RBL test that's aft
tion.outlook.com)? Or
> do I need to only have ".outlook.com OK"
>
>
>
> I tried testing my sender_checks file using:
>
>
>
> postmap -q 'mail-mw2nam10on2100.outbound.protection.outlook.com'
> hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
>
> (does not match)
&
utbound.protection.outlook.com'
hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
(does not match)
postmap -q 'outbound.protection.outlook.com' hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks
OK #(matches)
In any case, what I'm doing does not prevent the RBL test that's after the
sender check from
28.02.24, 09:20 +0100, lists--- via Postfix-users:
> My sender_access file contains
>
> charity.donation.jp REJECT
>
> postmap -q charity.donation.jp hash:sender_access
> REJECT
>
> So it returns REJECT as expected. However testing some random users at
> the domain:
>
> postmap -q m...@charit
rejected in actual use even though
postmap -q testing with a specific user at the domain name doesn't
return anything?
This test has similar results with OK instead of REJECT.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubs
duluxoz via Postfix-users writes:
> Sorry Everyone, but I need to test if my posts are going through
>
> Please ignore (or feel free to send me a confirmation)
>
> Cheers
>
> Dulux-Oz
Looks good.
But Subject's prefix [pfx] or [P-U] are too rich.
Just it is minor
On 2023-03-24 10:49, Antonio Leding via Postfix-users wrote:
Got it…
Also, just an FYI - But I’ve always been able to confirm my posts are
working properly by reviewing the list archive. Posts seem to appear
almost as fast as received by the list members so typically a good way
to verify eve
-archive.com/postfix-users@postfix.org/
- - -
On 22 Mar 2023, at 22:41, duluxoz via Postfix-users wrote:
Sorry Everyone, but I need to test if my posts are going through
Please ignore (or feel free to send me a confirmation)
Cheers
Dulux-Oz
___
Postfix
Thanks Guys :-)___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
duluxoz via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-03-23 06:41:
Sorry Everyone, but I need to test if my posts are going through
+1
Please ignore (or feel free to send me a confirmation)
if that going through ? :)
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix
Sorry Everyone, but I need to test if my posts are going through
Please ignore (or feel free to send me a confirmation)
Cheers
Dulux-Oz
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le
tests or is there some way to send test messages from the command
> line with just the basic postfix installation?
If you don't need any friendly helpful program to prepare an RFC5322
message header + body, then you can send messages with the sendmail(1)
program that comes with Postfix.
o install it to be able to
> > send tests or is there some way to send test messages from the command
> > line with just the basic postfix installation?
>
> Postfix assumes that there will be a mail command that takes input
> from other programs and from users.
>
OK, thanks,
Chris Green:
> I have postfix installed on all of my systems and mostly they have at
> least mailx as well which is handy for sending tests. However one
> system doesn't even have mailx, do Ihave to install it to be able to
> send tests or is there some way to send test messages
t even have mailx, do Ihave to install it to be able to
> send tests or is there some way to send test messages from the command
> line with just the basic postfix installation?
>
> --
> Chris Green
>
I have postfix installed on all of my systems and mostly they have at
least mailx as well which is handy for sending tests. However one
system doesn't even have mailx, do Ihave to install it to be able to
send tests or is there some way to send test messages from the command
line with jus
please ignore
On 01 Feb 2021, at 13:38, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 12:09:38PM +, pat...@patpro.net wrote:
>
>> It's a risk I can take if I'm stuck but I'm willing to try the dual-sign
>> method.
>
> I should mention that given the humongous sizes of your current
> signatures, dua
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 12:09:38PM +, pat...@patpro.net wrote:
> It's a risk I can take if I'm stuck but I'm willing to try the dual-sign
> method.
I should mention that given the humongous sizes of your current
signatures, dual signing will make things noticeably worse in
the meantime, unle
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 12:09:38PM +, pat...@patpro.net wrote:
> I do run BIND 9.16.x and I've just read a few things about
> dnssec-keymgr and dnssec-policy.conf that I need to dig in
> (https://www.sidn.nl/en/dnssec/dnssec-signatures-in-bind-named).
Good luck, feel free to post your experie
February 1, 2021 11:07 AM, "Viktor Dukhovni" wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:54:47AM +, pat...@patpro.net wrote:
>
>> What would be the main steps to renew keys with best practice in mind
>> (algorithm 13 with ECDSA P256 keys)? I'm trying and find a good
>> how-to but most are quite old
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:54:47AM +, pat...@patpro.net wrote:
> > but more importantly, your DNSSEC implementation is FUBAR:
>
> I've chosen to go with huge keys from the start to be "future proof",
> not so smart I guess.
Yes, turned out to just be a source of problems, with no benefit.
>
January 31, 2021 10:29 PM, "Viktor Dukhovni" wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 07:15:05PM +0100, Patrick Proniewski wrote:
>
>> fixed:
>>
>> $ telnet mail.patpro.net 25
>> Trying 193.30.227.216...
>> Connected to mail.patpro.net.
>> Escape character is '^]'.
>> 220-rack.patpro.net Do not say any
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 07:15:05PM +0100, Patrick Proniewski wrote:
> fixed:
>
> $ telnet mail.patpro.net 25
> Trying 193.30.227.216...
> Connected to mail.patpro.net.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220-rack.patpro.net Do not say anything yet
You might also throw "ESMTP" in there:
220-hostn
On 31 Jan 2021, at 18:13, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Patrick Proniewski:
>> I'm looking for a tool/service that would help me diagnose delivery problems
>> to my server? Any hint appreciated.
> What about good old telnet or netcat?
because I'm looking for a way t
Patrick Proniewski:
> Hello,
>
> I've got a strange problem with my MX server, that is not related to postfix:
> looks like neither Steam nor Binance can post email to me. I've had a
> discussion with Steam support, they said they have delivery failure on their
> side but couldn't provide more
Hello,
I've got a strange problem with my MX server, that is not related to postfix:
looks like neither Steam nor Binance can post email to me. I've had a
discussion with Steam support, they said they have delivery failure on their
side but couldn't provide more details than this:
Time Attemp
On 10/20/20 7:41 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 07:22:24PM -0700, PGNet Dev wrote:
What's the right tool/method for the job? Specifically, for
synthesizing a 'faux legit' email?
http://www.postfix.org/XCLIENT_README.html
simple & does the trick.
perfect.
thx!
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 07:22:24PM -0700, PGNet Dev wrote:
> What's the right tool/method for the job? Specifically, for
> synthesizing a 'faux legit' email?
http://www.postfix.org/XCLIENT_README.html
--
Viktor.
I'm troubleshooting an annoyingly problematic single-sender's rejections.
With my usual simple monkeying with smtpd_mumble_restrictions, per-milter
whitelisting, etc. I haven't yet found all the problems.
For testing, I'd *like* to 'accurately' spoof an email from sender's
IP/helo/from/to -- w
u don't have one already, set up a gmail account that autoforwards to
> > you.
> >
> > Send your test mail to this gmail address.
> >
> > Inspect the headers when you get it back. It's all there.
>
> Auto-fwd is easy enough, but I'm not clear .
On 3/18/19 2:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2019 02:15:30 PM PGNet Dev wrote:
&/or, is there another available tool that does the same -- testing inbound?
If you don't have one already, set up a gmail account that autoforwards to
you.
Send your test mail to t
On Monday, March 18, 2019 02:15:30 PM PGNet Dev wrote:
> &/or, is there another available tool that does the same -- testing inbound?
If you don't have one already, set up a gmail account that autoforwards to
you.
Send your test mail to this gmail address.
Inspect the headers whe
The list of DMARC et al deployment tools
https://dmarc.org/resources/deployment-tools/#Message_Validation
identifies
"DMARC, DKIM and SPF Test System at NIST"
https://www.had-pilot.com/
as one of available tests.
afaict, it's the only (?) test sit
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Marek Kozlowski wrote:
> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
>user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/vendor_perl/spamc -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f
> ${sender} ${recipient}
A side comment: The above should really be:
spamassassin un
It would be more convenient to do some tests before applying changes to
a production environment config. The problem is: I have no separate
testing environment with my strange configuration :-( I ' able to test a
spamassassin score for an e-mail manually. Can I test local mail
delivery by
I'm looking for someone who can test Postfix BURL support.
(With BURL a client can ask the SMTP server to include a message
that sits on an IMAP server; for example, to send a saved draft
message, or to forward an existing message, without having to
download it first and then upload it
Thank you Viktor
That was the issue.
Regards,
Todd
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on
behalf of Viktor Dukhovni
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:52
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: explore/test pipemap?
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Todd C. Ol
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Todd C. Olson wrote:
>
> However postmap reports
> postmap: fatal: unsupported dictionary type: pipemap
>
> Cornell University
Your version of Postfix is likely too old.
$ postconf mail_version mail_release_date
mail_version = 3.3.1
mail_release_date = 201
Hi
How does one test/explore pipemap?
I was hoping to use something like
postmap -q - 'pipemap:{ldap:./adlookup.cf pcre:./smtpstrip.pcre}'
in analogy to
postmap -q - ldap:./adlookup.cf
and
postmap -q - pcre:./smtpstrip.pcre
However postmap reports
postmap: fatal: u
e to my server, but I still need to test my email server, the TLS/SSL
>> setup, smtp and smtpd.
>
> What exactly you want to test?
> I've got a good success using ssmtp with some wrappings.
> Let me upload them… There: http://www.rootdir.org/upload/smtest.tar.xz
>
>&
Greetings, Robert Chalmers!
> I don’t have the luxury of having access to a useable computer from a site
> remote to my server, but I still need to test my email server, the TLS/SSL
> setup, smtp and smtpd.
What exactly you want to test?
I've got a good success using ssmtp with
Robert Chalmers:
>
> I don't have the luxury of having access to a useable computer from a site
> remote to my server, but I still need to test my email server, the TLS/SSL
> setup, smtp and smtpd.
> There are some remote test sites that also want a valid email and passwo
Le 12/3/18 à 7:48 PM, Robert Chalmers a écrit :
> I don’t have the luxury of having access to a useable computer from a site
> remote to my server, but I still need to test my email server, the TLS/SSL
> setup, smtp and smtpd.
> There are some remote test sites that also want a val
I don’t have the luxury of having access to a useable computer from a site
remote to my server, but I still need to test my email server, the TLS/SSL
setup, smtp and smtpd.
There are some remote test sites that also want a valid email and password! But
I’m a bit reluctant obviously.
I
I'm looking at Votiro, Proofpoint & Israel email security products
to reduce spam, emails from bad reputation IP, emails with
malicious attachments & URL.
What are the features/criteria to assess or look out for?
Esp if I'm on O365.
a) can link to SpamHaus, RBL etc to get bad reputation IP?
b) o
Hi
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Without a Postfix instance around, just 'echo' a message to the milter
> > listener?
>
> If you still want to go down this path, OpenDKIM has a miltertest component
> to
> drive it's test su
On Friday, November 02, 2018 10:23:04 AM pg...@dev-mail.net wrote:
> I'm starting to work on writing my own outbound milter for a Postfix
> instance.
>
> While working on it, I'll want to test with message submissions "to" it.
>
> Is there a good example
ng
> XCLIENT to impersonate any IP address, and to have Postfix do the
> translation to the Milter protocol for you.
I'll take that advice, thanks.
Probably useful too to RE-discover how to spin up _just_ an absolutely
minimal-for-the-job Postfix 'test' instance.
I've been
pg...@dev-mail.net:
> I'm starting to work on writing my own outbound milter for a Postfix instance.
>
> While working on it, I'll want to test with message submissions "to" it.
Use Postfix XCLIENT to impersonate any client IP address.
http://www.postfix.org/XCLIE
I'm starting to work on writing my own outbound milter for a Postfix instance.
While working on it, I'll want to test with message submissions "to" it.
Is there a good example of manually submitting a robust -- i.e., exactly as
from a running, Postfix instance -- message
On 2018-03-20 (02:15 MDT), Dominic Raferd wrote:
>
> openssl s_client -connect -starttls smtp
This is all I ever do. Unless I've been changing the configuration, I know that
if submission is responding, it is working.
If I have been changing the configuration, I know this.
It also doesn't in
On 20 March 2018 at 08:34, Alex JOST wrote:
> Am 20.03.2018 um 09:15 schrieb Dominic Raferd:
>
>> I regularly test my remote mail servers (which use postfix - with
>> dovecot for authentication) to check they are live and functioning,
>> including that they are responding
Am 20.03.2018 um 09:15 schrieb Dominic Raferd:
I regularly test my remote mail servers (which use postfix - with
dovecot for authentication) to check they are live and functioning,
including that they are responding correctly to authorised login with
STARTTLS.
I currently use this (sorry about
I regularly test my remote mail servers (which use postfix - with
dovecot for authentication) to check they are live and functioning,
including that they are responding correctly to authorised login with
STARTTLS.
I currently use this (sorry about line breaks, the original is on one line
Maurizio Caloro skrev den 2018-03-05 22:45:
I think this email will never arivve
I have send in the past so meny Question but no are displayed.
Possible i'am banned?
why is you dkim sign 3 times on same mail ?
and dmarc failed
On 3/5/2018 3:45 PM, Maurizio Caloro wrote:
> I think this email will never arivve
>
>
>
> I have send in the past so meny Question but no are displayed.
>
>
>
> Possible i’am banned?
>
>
>
Yes, it works. Be aware some mail systems suppress showing your own
posts to mailing lists. Gm
I think this email will never arivve
I have send in the past so meny Question but no are displayed.
Possible i'am banned?
Am 13. Februar 2018 09:52:53 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas
:
On 13.02.18 00:04, TG Servers wrote:
how can I best test postfix delivery from a local VM if port 25 is
blocked by ISP.
if you ISP doesn't unblock you, and you want to behave as mail server, you
have problem.
My
On 13.02.18 00:04, TG Servers wrote:
how can I best test postfix delivery from a local VM if port 25 is
blocked by ISP.
if you ISP doesn't unblock you, and you want to behave as mail server, you
have problem.
My only intention is to setup another VM and make a network between them
and
Will get back when I really know the definitive issue. Won't bother with
infrastructure issues here.
Am 13. Februar 2018 02:04:20 schrieb Server Messages :
I also have to check if my receiving server might be rejecting cause there
are not all dns settings correct on the vm or sort of things.
I also have to check if my receiving server might be rejecting cause there
are not all dns settings correct on the vm or sort of things. I hate vm
testing but as i am working on a complete and a bit complex server setup i
decided to don't hassle with a live server. But maybe a small cheap cloud
The thing here is my main line is connected to a vpn through a pfsense
firewall so i have to check why i cannot send through port 25 (it is open
of course) or what causes that the mail is not received. To be honest I did
not look really deep into it until now so i have to do some thorough
check
Server Messages:
> Hm as you mention it i am connected through a VPN so there has to be
> something else. Have to check that again.
Surely you can run more than one VPN?
Wietse
Hm as you mention it i am connected through a VPN so there has to be
something else. Have to check that again.
Thanks
Am 13. Februar 2018 01:03:39 schrieb Wietse Venema :
TG Servers:
Hi,
how can I best test postfix delivery from a local VM if port 25 is
blocked by ISP.
My only intention
TG Servers:
> Hi,
>
> how can I best test postfix delivery from a local VM if port 25 is
> blocked by ISP.
> My only intention is to setup another VM and make a network between them
> and then send mails between them.
Use a VPN?
Wietse
> Or is there any other sol
Hi,
how can I best test postfix delivery from a local VM if port 25 is
blocked by ISP.
My only intention is to setup another VM and make a network between them
and then send mails between them.
Or is there any other solution how I could get postfix from a VM to the
"world"?
Thanks!
dovecot
or similar) test image (Docker, VM) which could be used for this purpose?
Thanks in advance,
Albrecht.
pgpz0FrvUlTp4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 11/3/2016 1:12 PM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
> I found a way to test the expansion of normal .db maps:
>
> postmap -q testuser 'postconf -h virtual_alias_maps'
>
> however, it doesn't seem to work with LDAP maps. Is there a way to
> test those as well?
>
&g
On Nov 03, 2016, at 14.12, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>
> I found a way to test the expansion of normal .db maps:
>
> postmap -q testuser 'postconf -h virtual_alias_maps'
>
> however, it doesn't seem to work with LDAP maps. Is there a way to test those
> as wel
I found a way to test the expansion of normal .db maps:
postmap -q testuser 'postconf -h virtual_alias_maps'
however, it doesn't seem to work with LDAP maps. Is there a way to test
those as well?
Steve
test
--
Atenciosamente,
Rodrigo da Silva Cunha
> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:46 AM, Alice Wonder wrote:
>
>
> Isn't generally better to use a new private key?
Not if doing so makes it impractical to maintain correct TLSA records.
Specifically, if certificate renewals are frequent and automated, it
becomes difficult to pre-stage new keys and assoc
On 06/06/2016 07:46 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Alexandre Ellert wrote:
I�ve juste enable DANE and https://dane.sys4.de <https://dane.sys4.de/>
is green when I test my domain numeezy.com <http://numeezy.com/>. Also
postfix SMTP client sa
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:36:09PM +0200, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> > I did some further research. It seems that validns does not like this
> > construct, because it insists that TLSA records are 'properly prefixed'
> > (i.e. with a port and service prefix, see [1]).
>
> Insists, as a policy check, w
sencrypt.org/t/please-avoid-3-0-1-and-3-0-2-dane-tlsa-records-with-le-certificates/7022
>
> In the dane.sys4.de test code CNAMEs in TLSA records are supported
> and work, provided the target of the CNAME is in a signed zone of
> course. MX hosts that are CNAMEs are deliberately
he nice CNAME trick shown in
>>> https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/please-avoid-3-0-1-and-3-0-2-dane-tlsa-records-with-le-certificates/7022
>>
>> In the dane.sys4.de test code CNAMEs in TLSA records are supported
>> and work, provided the target of the CNAME is in a sig
ecords-with-le-certificates/7022
In the dane.sys4.de test code CNAMEs in TLSA records are supported
and work, provided the target of the CNAME is in a signed zone of
course. MX hosts that are CNAMEs are deliberately not supported
as these violate the RFC requirements for MX records.
For example:
_25._
> Le 6 juin 2016 à 16:46, Viktor Dukhovni a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Alexandre Ellert wrote:
>
>> I�ve juste enable DANE and https://dane.sys4.de <https://dane.sys4.de/>
>> is green when I test my domain numeezy.com <http://num
NE and https://dane.sys4.de <https://dane.sys4.de/>
>> is green when I test my domain numeezy.com <http://numeezy.com/>. Also
>> postfix SMTP client says "Verified TLS connection established to
>> mail-in-1.numeezy.com[188.165.154.163]:25: TLSv1.2 with cipher
&
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Alexandre Ellert wrote:
> I�ve juste enable DANE and https://dane.sys4.de <https://dane.sys4.de/>
> is green when I test my domain numeezy.com <http://numeezy.com/>. Also
> postfix SMTP client says "Verified TLS connection
Hello,
I’ve juste enable DANE and https://dane.sys4.de <https://dane.sys4.de/> is
green when I test my domain numeezy.com <http://numeezy.com/>.
Also postfix SMTP client says "Verified TLS connection established to
mail-in-1.numeezy.com[188.165.154.163]:25: TLSv1.2 with cipher
Apologies on the html mail. I wish I could make plain email the default on my
phone. Also apologies on the blank message I just sent. I have nerve damage and
the phone slipped enough to slide into send.
Original Message
From: Patrick Ben Koetter
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 8:07 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Reply To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Postfix penetration test
* li...@lazygranch.com :
> body { font-family: "Calibri","Slate
> Pro",sans
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 07:50:35AM -0700, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
> Any suggestions on a penetration test program that will trigger sshguard or
> fail2ban from the maillog?
swaks might do the trick
http://www.jetmore.org/john/code/swaks/
--
Christian Recktenwald
postfix-u
* li...@lazygranch.com :
> body { font-family: "Calibri","Slate
> Pro",sans-serif,"sans-serif"; color:#262626 } lang="en-US">Any suggestions on a penetration test program that will
> trigger sshguard or fail2ban from the maillog?
>
Se
Any suggestions on a penetration test program that will trigger sshguard or fail2ban from the maillog?
- Original Message -
> From: "Christian Kivalo"
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 2:56:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Postfix Postscreen Pregreet Test
> Am 23. Jänner 2016 04:30:02 MEZ, schrieb Nguyen Nang Thang
> :
>>- Origin
On 23/01/16 16:30, Nguyen Nang Thang wrote:
> Wietse:
> I dit my test as below:
> # nc localhost 25 < /tmp/postscreen-greet-wait.txt
> The output:
> 220 gw.mydomain.com ESMTP Postfix (2.10.1)
> 250 2.1.0 Ok
> 250 2.1.5 Ok
> 354 End data with .
> 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued
Am 23. Jänner 2016 04:30:02 MEZ, schrieb Nguyen Nang Thang
:
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Wietse Venema"
>> To: "Postfix users"
>> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 9:57:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: Postfix Postscreen Pregreet T
1 - 100 of 351 matches
Mail list logo
