>
> Santiago Romero:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL" -lsasl
make
>
> See the INSTALL file. Also on-line as http://www.postfix.org/INSTALL.html
>
> See also the SASL_README file for SASL-specific command syntax.
Ok, I see it:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AU
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
Rob McEwen wrote:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
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.
Stan, I really do like you... and I don't want to make an enemy out of
you... but there are massive mis-characterizations in that statement
above
Zitat von Stan Hoeppner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
On Tors, August 21, 2008 05:10, James Robertson wrote:
> We cannot block hotmail due to valid mail coming from there. Is there a
> way in Postfix that could filter out this junk somehow?
hotmail use spf, let recipient benefit from this, whitelist sender from
address book with spf in mta level,
hotmail use spf, let recipient benefit from this, whitelist sender from
address book with spf in mta level, no need to be smart :)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this could you elaborate? The email
is coming from Hotmails server and therefore SPF is valid.
shourt:
dont whitelist
Tait Grove:
> Aug 20 15:49:02 post-app2 postfix/smtpd[23676]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> ug-out-1314.google.com[66.249.92.174]: 450 4.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Recipient address rejected: unverified address: Address verification in
> progress; from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pro
Bj?rn T Johansen:
> 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[
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> Bj?rn T Johansen:
> > 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] (W
Bj?rn T Johansen:
> > > > Please read the documents that I referred you to.
> > >
> > > Yes, I did but I am not sure what the solution is? I see that the D flag
> > > adds a Delivered-To header and that
> > > it checks the mail to see if it already has a Delivered-To header and the
> > > message
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> Bj?rn T Johansen:
> > > > > Please read the documents that I referred you to.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I did but I am not sure what the solution is? I see that the D
> > > > flag adds a Delivered-To header and that
>
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
> Hello,
> When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine. There's sasl issues
> with OE, if your using sasl i do have a fix for those i'll have to look in
> my main.cf, but it's an issue.
> Dave.
SASL works for me with OE.
It's TLS that is failing. I
Michael wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine. There's sasl issues
>> with OE, if your using sasl i do have a fix for those i'll have to look in
>> my main.cf, but it's an issue.
>> Dave.
>>
>
> SASL works for me
Noel Jones wrote:
> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>> I want a single account to only accept NDRs. Other email should be
>> rejected.
>>
>> Would the following work correctly?
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
>> ...
>> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/receieve_only
>> ...
>>
>> /etc/p
* Aaron Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
>
> Evaluated this one about a year ago. Too many false positives to use
> as a block list,
Amen, I activated it for 30 Seconds (!) and had 3 FP during that time.
That was because I used it incorrectly...
> but I do include
I have small problem with postfix when trying to switch to mysql for postfix.
I used:
$sudo postmap -q [EMAIL PROTECTED] hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$sudo postmap -q [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-list.cf mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql.cf
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to test the config
* Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Exactly.
> http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Spam_DNS_Lists#Postfix_Examples
> this example lacks the usage described further down in "Name Based DNS
> Lookup"
>
>reject_rbl_sender hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com=127.0.0.2
I fixed that now in t
found out it was a chroot problem.
My fix if any comes by the same problem was to add this to the startup script:
if [ -e /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock ]; then
if [ -e /var/spool/postfix/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock ]; th$
rm /var/spool/postfix/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
fi
mkdir -p /var/sp
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
I want a single account to only accept NDRs. Other email should be
rejected.
Would the following work correctly?
smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/receieve_only
...
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
[snip]
ndr_only = check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/ndr_senders,reject
if you want to check the recipient, rename your map.
if you want to check the sender, rename your check.
$ cat /etc/postfix/ndr_senders
<> OK
This will never match a recipi
Jes Andersen wrote:
found out it was a chroot problem.
My fix if any comes by the same problem was to add this to the startup script:
if [ -e /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock ]; then
if [ -e /var/spool/postfix/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock ]; th$
rm /var/spool/postfix/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
> use TCP instead of creating mysql sockets all around your fs.
I'll rather have the higher efficiency from a unix socket and besides
my mysql is network disabled ;)
Even looking for a way to handle some caching of the response. Also
working on a more push based system, but I don't like the need
mouss wrote:
> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> ndr_only = check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/ndr_senders,reject
>>
>
> if you want to check the recipient, rename your map.
> if you want to check the sender, rename your check.
>
>> $ cat /etc/postfix/ndr_senders
>> <> OK
Jes Andersen wrote:
use TCP instead of creating mysql sockets all around your fs.
I'll rather have the higher efficiency from a unix socket and besides
my mysql is network disabled ;)
Then use DOS. your unix is spending too much time switching contexts and
checking permissions.
Do you have
Michael wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
Hello,
When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine. There's sasl issues
with OE, if your using sasl i do have a fix for those i'll have to look in
my main.cf, but it's an issue.
Dave.
SASL works for me with OE.
It's TLS that is fa
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:private/policy
(this is immediately after reject_unauth_d
Noel Jones wrote:
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:private/policy
(this is immediately af
mouss wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
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:private/policy
(this is
> Then use DOS. your unix is spending too much time switching contexts and
> checking permissions.
>
> Do you have actual measurements or are you just speculating? the benefits of
> a tcp connection generally outweight the handshake costs. and with
> connection "caching", the handshake costs are i
>
> first remove (or hold) the old mail or requeue it. then make sure the
> message passes via the smtpd where you added the check_mx_access call.
> As Noel said, use postmap to test your map, and if needed use -v to get
> more logs.
>
>
>
postmap outputs the correct mapping:
postmap -q
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
first remove (or hold) the old mail or requeue it. then make sure the
message passes via the smtpd where you added the check_mx_access call.
As Noel said, use postmap to test your map, and if needed use -v to get
more logs.
postmap outputs the correct mappin
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wietse wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette:
>> client_in_my_networks=[yes/no]
>
>That might work (under a better name) but it should not encourage
>requests to simply dump all the low-level Postfix predicates in
>the policy protocol:
Well, it's purpose is limited to
> At this point I think the only explanation is that the
> recipient MX didn't match what is in your table. It does
> appear that the lookup occurred, and no match was found.
>
> One possibility is that your DNS is borked and not properly
> looking up MX records. Test with:
> # dig example.c
Dear users, today an user told me he was recieving too many spam in a
very short period of time. I took a look at the log files and what he
told me is true. :(
But... it just happens to him, nothing else is recieving spam. The
server is running Postfix + SpamAssassin + Clamav and the filters s
Rodre Ghorashi-Zadeh wrote:
At this point I think the only explanation is that the
recipient MX didn't match what is in your table. It does
appear that the lookup occurred, and no match was found.
One possibility is that your DNS is borked and not properly
looking up MX records. Test with:
Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática wrote:
Dear users, today an user told me he was recieving too many spam in a
very short period of time. I took a look at the log files and what he
told me is true. :(
But... it just happens to him, nothing else is recieving spam. The
server is running Po
Noel Jones escribió:
Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática wrote:
Dear users, today an user told me he was recieving too many spam in a
very short period of time. I took a look at the log files and what he
told me is true. :(
But... it just happens to him, nothing else is recieving spam. The
Noel Jones escribió:
Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática wrote:
Dear users, today an user told me he was recieving too many spam in a
very short period of time. I took a look at the log files and what he
told me is true. :(
But... it just happens to him, nothing else is recieving spam. The
Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática wrote:
Noel Jones escribió:
Miguel Da Silva - Centro de Matemática wrote:
Dear users, today an user told me he was recieving too many spam in a
very short period of time. I took a look at the log files and what he
told me is true. :(
But... it just happ
Ronald F. Guilmette:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wietse wrote:
>
> >Ronald F. Guilmette:
> >>client_in_my_networks=[yes/no]
> >
> >That might work (under a better name) but it should not encourage
> >requests to simply dump all the low-level Postfix predicates in
> >the policy protoco
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:34:14 -0500
Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine. There's sasl
>>> issues with OE, if your using sasl i do have a fix for those i'll
>>> have to l
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Instead of inbound/outbound, Postfix uses the concept of mail relay
>authorization in the SMTP server.
Yes. Thank you for clarifying. You're correct that this is really
what I want my policy server to tailor its behavio
>
> Yes, that's fine. Although it would be easier to just set
> smtpd_delay_reject back to it's default of "yes", or remove it
> from your config entirely.
>
Yes, I changed it around and that allowed me to specify the map in
smtpd_sender_restrictions=
Just one question so I can better my un
Dear users, I'm dealing with backscatter and trying to write some
expressions to use in body_checks.
I could not see how to write it down: "if the From header has a e-mail
of my network, then the Message-ID must possess a domain.com part"
(let's suppose domain.com is the local domain).
Any h
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Evans - Postfix List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: Postfix TLS and M$ Outlook Express
Michael wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:07:12 Dave wrote:
Hello,
When i used outlook express and tls it worked fine.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:39:47 +1200 "Michael Hallager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Brian Evans - Postfix List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:50 AM
>Subject: Re: Postfix TLS and M$ Outlook Express
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 A
46 matches
Mail list logo
