* Stan Hoeppner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I highly recommend you sub to spam-l and post your question there also.
> http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l/spam-l.html
>
> FWIW, here's my dnsbl config:
>
>reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
> reject_rbl_client dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net,
>
* James Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Apologies if this has been asked before.
>
> I would like to log the message headers of email passing through postfix
> so I can review them.
>
> What is the recommended way to do this and will it have an effect on
> performance? our mail server does no
Hi.
I tried to upgrade from a perfectly running postfix system
(2.5.1 + SASL1) to 2.5.4, and got an strange error.
I compiled 2.5.1 (tar.gz from postfix's website) 3 months ago with:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH" -lsasl
make
make install
(answered the install questions and installed
I have configured the smtpd_sender_restrictions =
reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,reject_unauthenticated_sender_login_mismatch
Still without authentication it is able to
accept mailswhat is wrong in my configuration i have provided the
result of post
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Matthias Andree:
> > If Postfix (or qmail[1], or whatever application) claims to support a
> > particular operating system (Linux, Solaris - rather than POSIX), then
> > it has to make proper assumptions to work in that possibly different
> > environment
R Pradeepa wrote:
I have configured the smtpd_sender_restrictions =
reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,reject_unauthenticated_sender_login_mismatch
you only need one. The most restrictive is reject_sender_login_mismatch
(it rejects whether the user authen
Santiago Romero wrote:
Hi.
I tried to upgrade from a perfectly running postfix system
(2.5.1 + SASL1) to 2.5.4, and got an strange error.
I compiled 2.5.1 (tar.gz from postfix's website) 3 months ago with:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH" -lsasl
make
make install
(answered the install
* mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> R Pradeepa wrote:
>> I have configured the smtpd_sender_restrictions =
>> reject_sender_login_mismatch,reject_authenticated_sender_login_mismatch,reject_unauthenticated_sender_login_mismatch
>>
>
> you only need one. The most restrictive is reject_sender_login_misma
I'm trying to make that working with lists.soez.be
Now i have this :
$mydestination = , lists.$mydomain
In mailman i have set lists.soez.be instead soez.be
I have restart postfix and now i have this error :
Aug 20 11:13:20 soez postfix/pipe[3296]: 311ECAE7A0: to=, relay=maildrop,
delay=0
CCARGS='-DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
-DUSE_CYRUS_SASL'
When Dovecot authentication was introduced the arguments were changed.
Now you have to use -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL explicitely in order to compile
support for Cyrus sasl in.
It does not compile this way:
(...)
gcc -Wmissing-prototypes -Wformat -DUSE_SAS
Santiago Romero wrote:
CCARGS='-DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
-DUSE_CYRUS_SASL'
When Dovecot authentication was introduced the arguments were changed.
Now you have to use -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL explicitely in order to compile
support for Cyrus sasl in.
It does not compile this way:
(...)
gcc -Wmissing-proto
At the moment I am scratching my head. Something is apparently
different in the sasl implementation. I assume that you compile both
versions in the same environment?
Yes. Same machine:
truth:~/sources/postfix# ls -l
total 6188
drwxr-xr-x 16 postfix postfix 4096 ago 20 10:03 postfix-2
Santiago Romero wrote:
I compile 2.5.1 with:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH" -lsasl
make
And SASL works. The same "make" sentences with 2.5.4 compiles and
after the
make upgrade it gives the sasl error in the logs.
And "compiled postfconf" says:
truth:~/sources/postfix/postfix-2.
Santiago Romero wrote:
Santiago Romero wrote:
I compile 2.5.1 with:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH" -lsasl
make
And SASL works. The same "make" sentences with 2.5.4 compiles and
after the
make upgrade it gives the sasl error in the logs.
And "compiled postfconf" says:
truth:~/so
I get the following in my log...:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/smtpd[2774]: connect from pat.havleik.no[10.1.1.4]
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/smtpd[2774]: 88AC71FA25F:
client=pat.havleik.no[10.1.1.4]
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/cleanup[2789]: 88AC71FA25F: message-id=<[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Aug 20 12:
Are you absolutely sure that you need SASL1 and not SASL2? Please
check what versions of sasl.h are installed on your system. It could
be that an incompatible version is used during compilation.
Yes, I need it. I don't have available SASL2 and when I tried to
download and compile sasl2 in su
Bj?rn T Johansen:
> Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> relay=dovecot, delay=0.09, delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced
> (mail forwarding loop for [EMAIL PROTECTED])
You are sending mail with
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
into the pi
Thanks mouss. :)
Use hash file as replacement now.
Thanks Wietse,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can "verify" if the installed software matches the RPM package.
> # rpm -qa 'postfix*'
rpm -qa 'postfix*'
postfix-2.3.3-2.el5.centos.mysql_pgsql
postfix-pflogsumm-2.3.3-2
> # rpm --verify name-of-packa
Thanks Barney, I guess I'm still stuck.
What I'm most worried about is if I don't do the upgrade properly. If
I do an RPM upgrade and it was originally installed via source will
that hurt? I've never run into this problem before and I'm not sure I
understand what will happen if I do that upgrade w
So a few other details I've grabbed didn't provide yesterday-
These numbers don't seem to add up.
My big question is how do I get this system upgraded without breaking it?
postconf -d | grep mail_version
mail_version = 2.4.5
and also
rpm -qa | grep postfix
postfix-2.3.3-2.el5.centos.mysql_pgsql
On 8/20/2008, Blake Carver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So a few other details I've grabbed didn't provide yesterday-
> These numbers don't seem to add up.
> My big question is how do I get this system upgraded without breaking it?
>
> postconf -d | grep mail_version
> mail_version = 2.4.5
>
> a
Santiago Romero wrote:
Solved! I noticed that the undefined symbols were correctly defined in
libsasl1, so I thought that the problem was the library not being linked
in. So:
I changed:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL" -lsasl
make
To:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE
Santiago Romero:
> Santiago Romero wrote:
>
> Solved! I noticed that the undefined symbols were correctly defined in
> libsasl1, so I thought that the problem was the library not being linked
> in. So:
>
> I changed:
>
>
> make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL" -lsasl
> ma
Hi People,
I am new in the list and would like to share an idea (I know this is way
off) I have a serious problem and has researched in several places and
found no answer. The problem is the following, I move an e-mail to test
for the user and sends the same e-mail from tmda asking for
confirmatio
(Not my question, but since Victor doesn't do offlist mails...)
I am interested to learn how multiple x.509 certificates/hostnames are
supported by postfix.
Patrick suggested you can use SubjectAlternativeName to have multiple
hostnames, which is ok if you self-generate certificates.
I wonder if
Num ber wrote:
I'm trying to make that working with lists.soez.be
Now i have this :
$mydestination = , lists.$mydomain
In mailman i have set lists.soez.be instead soez.be
I have restart postfix and now i have this error :
Aug 20 11:13:20 soez postfix/pipe[3296]: 311ECAE7A0: to=, relay=ma
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL" -lsasl
make
That is not the correct syntax. See the INSTALL file.
What's wrong? The "-lsasl" statement?
In the INSTALL file I see you use "single quotation marks" instead of
double. Besides of that, what I'm doing wrong?
Th
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> (Not my question, but since Victor doesn't do offlist mails...)
Victor is not on the list in August.
> I am interested to learn how multiple x.509 certificates/hostnames are
> supported by postfix.
The Postfix SMTP client supports one server certificate per
connection:
Santiago Romero:
>
> >> make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL" -lsasl
> >> make
> >>
> >
> > That is not the correct syntax. See the INSTALL file.
> >
>
> What's wrong? The "-lsasl" statement?
See the INSTALL file. Also on-line as http://www.postfix.org/INSTALL.html
S
Thanks for the pruning tips Ralf. I figured some of those were dead,
just hadn't bothered to do any verification recently.
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Stan Hoeppner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I highly recommend you sub to spam-l and post your question there also.
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-
* Stan Hoeppner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks for the pruning tips Ralf. I figured some of those were dead,
> just hadn't bothered to do any verification recently.
There COULD be something in the logs. It can be dangerous to leave
those old entries in, since the DNS servers could return 127.0.0
> So a few other details I've grabbed didn't provide yesterday- These
> numbers don't seem to add up.
> My big question is how do I get this system upgraded without breaking
> it?
>
> postconf -d | grep mail_version
> mail_version = 2.4.5
>
> and also
>
> rpm -qa | grep postfix
> postfix-2.3.3-
I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
The error from the server for an empty subject is:
"Server replied: 550 5.7.1 message content rejected"
Can I change it to say "empty subject rejected?
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix - n n
Blake Carver wrote:
So a few other details I've grabbed didn't provide yesterday-
These numbers don't seem to add up.
My big question is how do I get this system upgraded without breaking it?
postconf -d | grep mail_version
mail_version = 2.4.5
and also
rpm -qa | grep postfix
postfix-2.3.3-2.
James:
> I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
> The error from the server for an empty subject is:
> "Server replied: 550 5.7.1 message content rejected"
>
> Can I change it to say "empty subject rejected?
Yes. The REJECT action allows you to specify text.
Wietse
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix -
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
master.cf Added
policy unix -
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, James wrote:
I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
The error from the server for an empty subject is:
"Server replied: 550 5.7.1 message content rejected"
Can I change it to say "empty subject rejected?
You should be able to add that into the header check. I.e.
James wrote:
I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
"normal" people do send mail without a subject, and I didn't see much
spam without a subject. so I don't think this is an effective anti-spam
measure.
if you really hate empty subjects, you may want to do the check in
spamassass
On Wed, August 20, 2008 11:41 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
> James:
>
>> I added a header check to reject empty subjects.
>> The error from the server for an empty subject is:
>> "Server replied: 550 5.7.1 message content rejected"
>>
>>
>> Can I change it to say "empty subject rejected?
>>
>
> Yes. Th
Hi,
I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this
in the log:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504
: Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname;
from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> proto=SMTP
helo=
bmmail.cwf.org retur
* John Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this
> in the log:
>
> NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504 :
> Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname;
> from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to=<[EMAIL PROT
On 8/20/2008, John Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> bmmail.cwf.org returns a valid result from a dns check. What am I
> missing here?
This: helo=
helo hostnames should be FQDN's...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, John Baker wrote:
Hi,
I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this in the
log:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504 : Helo
command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname; from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Baker wrote:
I user reported mail not getting to him from somebody and I found this
in the log:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from bmmail.cwf.org[216.54.2.34]: 504 :
Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname;
from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> proto=SMTP
helo=
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:30, LuKreme wrote:
> I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
> portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
>
> main.cf Added
> check_policy_service unix:private/policy
>
> (this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination
Blake Carver wrote:
> So a few other details I've grabbed didn't provide yesterday-
> These numbers don't seem to add up.
> My big question is how do I get this system upgraded without breaking it?
>
> postconf -d | grep mail_version
> mail_version = 2.4.5
>
> and also
>
> rpm -qa | grep postfix
>
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> Bj?rn T Johansen:
> > Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=<[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>, relay=dovecot, delay=0.09,
> > delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail forwarding loop for
> >
Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
relay=dovecot, delay=0.09,
delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced (mail forwarding
Sandy Drobic wrote:
Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
Bj?rn T Johansen:
Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F:
to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=dovecot, delay=0.09,
delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounc
Santiago Romero wrote:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL" -lsasl
make
That is not the correct syntax. See the INSTALL file.
What's wrong? The "-lsasl" statement?
Wrong parameter. Here's the part from the SASL_README:
% make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH
Bj?rn T Johansen:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>
> > Bj?rn T Johansen:
> > > Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=<[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]>, relay=dovecot, delay=0.09,
> > > delays=0.07/0/0/0.02, dsn=5.4.6, status=bounced
Hello,
Thanks for your response. According to http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html the
filter would override my content_filter setting in main.cf, which I am
currently using with amavisd-new:
FILTER transport:destination
After the message is queued, send the entire mes-
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for your response. According to http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html the
filter would override my content_filter setting in main.cf, which I am
currently using with amavisd-new:
yes. use the mx_access FILTER in the after-amavisd-new smtpd.
Alterna
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for your response. According to http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html the
filter would override my content_filter setting in main.cf, which I am
currently using with amavisd-new:
FILTER transport:destination
After the message is queued,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Duane Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Adam C. Mathews wrote:
>
>> Presenting using the following blacklists...
>>
>> dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net
>> psbl.surriel.com
>> zen.spamhaus.org
>>
>>
>> These do a good job for me, but I wanted to look for opi
Hello,
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by "top post" all I did was hit "reply"
in hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I think the
problem is that check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an "access" table type
and not a CIDR table type:
check_recipient_mx_acc
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by "top post" all I did was hit "reply" in
hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I think the problem is that
check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an "access" table type and not a CIDR table t
>> I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by "top post" all I did was hit
>> "reply" in hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work.
>> I think the problem is that check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an
>> "access" table type and not a CIDR table type:
>>
>
> Top-post
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by "top post" all I did was hit
> "reply" in hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I
> think the problem is that check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an "access"
> table type and not a CI
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
Hello,
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean by "top post" all I did was hit "reply" in
hotmail. I tried adding this in my master.cf but it didn't work. I think the problem is that
check_recipient_mx_access is expecting an "access" table type and not a CIDR table t
> An access formatted table does not care which type as long as it returns
> values that are expected.
> Any supported table type is valid for access tables.
> man 5 cidr_table for details as what is expected on the left hand side.
> access(5) values are expected on the right hand side.
>
I h
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:16:22 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> Bj?rn T Johansen:
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> >
> > > Bj?rn T Johansen:
> > > > Aug 20 12:36:44 web postfix/pipe[2802]: 88AC71FA25F: to=<[EMAIL
> >
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
An access formatted table does not care which type as long as it returns
values that are expected.
Any supported table type is valid for access tables.
man 5 cidr_table for details as what is expected on the left hand side.
access(5) values are expected on the righ
-
>
> You used a space in the command line. Don't do that.
OK, I replaced the space with a comma.
> The above line must not have any spaces in it. Replace the
> space between "...mx_access" and "cidr:..." with a "," comma,
> just like in the example you were given before.
Now it is no
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
-
You used a space in the command line. Don't do that.
OK, I replaced the space with a comma.
The above line must not have any spaces in it. Replace the
space between "...mx_access" and "cidr:..." with a "," comma,
just like in the example you were given be
> This only affects mail when it enters postfix (or more
> specifically, when it leaves the content_filter). Mail
> already in the queue will not be affected. Mail that bypasses
> the content_filter will not be affected.
>
> Why is "to=" logged above? There must be a recipient address
> t
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
This only affects mail when it enters postfix (or more
specifically, when it leaves the content_filter). Mail
already in the queue will not be affected. Mail that bypasses
the content_filter will not be affected.
Why is "to=" logged above? There must be a reci
A handful of my email users are getting an error message from external
servers mailing to our servers. This error occurs when you change the letter
case in the email address. Example, if you send from Yahoo! to my server
using the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] the email will go through, but if you
emai
I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
Basically, I think it would be very useful if the protcol included a
line like:
trusted_client=[yes/no]
where the value would be set to "yes" if and only if
Tait Grove:
> A handful of my email users are getting an error message from external
> servers mailing to our servers. This error occurs when you change the letter
> case in the email address. Example, if you send from Yahoo! to my server
> using the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] the email will go thro
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
> I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
>
> Basically, I think it would be very useful if the protcol included a
> line like:
>
> trusted_client=[yes/no]
>
> where the valu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>>
>> I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
>> I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
>>
>> Basically, I think it would be very useful if the pro
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>
> >Ronald F. Guilmette:
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose a small enhancement for the Policy Server protocol.
> >> I'll code up a first cut of it, if nobody else is willing.
> >>
> >> Basically, I
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:12:02 Dave wrote:
> Hi,
> Do you have any notes on this setup? I'd like to get pointed on the right
> path.
> Thanks.
> Dave.
http://www.postfix.org/faq.html#fax
For reference here are my files:
master.cf
fax unix - n n - 1 pipe
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:12:02 Dave wrote:
> Hi,
> Do you have any notes on this setup? I'd like to get pointed on the right
> path.
> Thanks.
> Dave.
http://www.postfix.org/faq.html#fax
For reference here are my files:
master.cf
fax unix - n n - 1 pipe
Has anyone else here found incompatibilities between these two?
My TLS implementation works fine sending from KDE Kmail, but I can't use
Outlook Express' secure option.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-postfix-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:32 PM
> To: Tait Grove
> Cc: 'Postfix users'
> Subject: Re: address rejected: unverified address: Address verification in
> progress
>
>
On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
main.cf Added
check_policy_service unix:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination)
mas
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I would also take a good look at the 'invaluement antispam rbl', see
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
This list performs extremely well for us.
That's Rob's list, haha! It's cool to hear folks are using it. He's
been plugging it on spam-l for a while. I know he's put much ha
Recently we noticed an increase in junk and discovered that it's coming
from Hotmail (and to a lesser extent Yahoo).
The problem is that these spammers are smarter that the average spammer.
The don't spam flatout all the time (not to us anyway) and since the
mail comes from hotmail's servers a
you get a bounce back message stating
>> ?address
>> > rejected: unverified address: Address verification in progress?. What
>> causes
>> > this error in these cases?
Looks like you have 'sender address verification' enabled.
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html
I'm not sure
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 22:27, LuKreme wrote:
> On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
> > LuKreme wrote:
> >> I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
> >> portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
> >> main.cf Added
> >> check_policy_service unix:p
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 20:01, Michael wrote:
> Has anyone else here found incompatibilities between these two?
>
> My TLS implementation works fine sending from KDE Kmail, but I can't use
> Outlook Express' secure option.
Depending on the version of OE involved (I believe the current version
In this scenario you're better off trying to help others clean up their
networks than to try to block or filter based on the content. As you
stated, they are the Gorillas of mail and you can't really block them.
So, work with them. Believe it or not, these records are published
because people
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 01:10:32PM +1000, James Robertson wrote:
>
> Recently we noticed an increase in junk and discovered that it's coming
> from Hotmail (and to a lesser extent Yahoo).
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.144 required=5.31 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599,
> ...
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.
88 matches
Mail list logo
