Re: 4.5.3 too many recipients

apparently, judging from the errors he's telling me about, yes... and using a mailing list (like mailman,...) is out of the skill reach of either the principal or the people doing the admin stuff there now :/ And i'm not really having much spare time on my hands so i'd like keeping the extra stuff

RE: Postfix and quota clarification

> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:49 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa a écrit : > > > >>> However, Postfix supports access maps that can reject mail for > >>> over-quota users, if you are willing to periodically add up all > >>> the mail each user has. > >> > >> I ha

RE: how to manage Active queue - SOLVED

> Jevos, Peter wrote: > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> I'd like to ask you if it is possible to somehow manage active > queue > >>> > >>> For example from the qshape program I can see that there is some > >> mails > >>> in the active queue. > >>> > >>> How can I examine them or delete only special mails from t

Redundant remote server

Hello folks, I am actually working for an African country where the electricity is not as stable as one could expect - even in the infrastructure of the historical telco operator… With all the care that we have been able to devote to this project, stability is still very very limited. S

Re: Redundant remote server

bsd: > Hello folks, > > I am actually working for an African country where the electricity is > not as stable as one could expect - even in the infrastructure of the > historical telco operator_ > > With all the care that we have been able to devote to this project, > stability is still very very l

maps_rbl_reject_code

Hi, I am experimenting with setting maps_rbl_reject_code to 454 to cause XBL clients to defer instead of bounce requests, in the thought that zombied hosts will not retry anyhow and legitimate senders who are compromised will have a chance to get themselves delisted. However, although I have

Re: maps_rbl_reject_code

* Aaron Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > I am experimenting with setting maps_rbl_reject_code to 454 to cause XBL > clients to defer instead of bounce requests, in the thought that zombied > hosts will not retry anyhow and legitimate senders who are compromised > will have a chance to g

Re: Redundant remote server

Thank you very much for your answer. I have subscribed to the usenix discussion and have been able to access the documents and read them. Thaugh I think this is very promising for the environement we are working with, It seems to be still a research laboratory project at this stage. I wou

Re: maps_rbl_reject_code

Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: default_rbl_reply = $rbl_code Service unavailable; $rbl_class [$rbl_what] blocked using $rbl_domain${rbl_reason?; $rbl_reason} -- Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for whitelisting and rbl_code is what you're looking for OTOH: # postconf rbl_code postconf: warning: rbl_code: un

Re: Redundant remote server

On Monday 24 November 2008 12:04:44 bsd wrote: > Hello folks, > > > I am actually working for an African country where the electricity is > not as stable as one could expect - even in the infrastructure of the > historical telco operator… > > With all the care that we have been able to devote to t

Fwd: preventing backscatter with virtual_alias_maps

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > D G Teed a écrit : > > I'd like to see an example of a set up where we could use relay_domains > > and provide the flexibility of sending to any of our inbox servers > > within our domain, or forwarding a particular addresses ema

Re: Fwd: preventing backscatter with virtual_alias_maps

D G Teed wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > D G Teed a écrit : > > I'd like to see an example of a set up where we could use > relay_domains > > and provide the flexibility of sending to any of our inbox serve

Address rewrite while relaying

The question: Is it possible to have a domain do address rewriting and relaying in some combination? The network structure is as follows: All mail goes to a single border gateway server, which is the one that all of the following will talk about. From this gateway, mail then passes to a s

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:21:37PM -0500, George Vilches wrote: > The question: Is it possible to have a domain do address rewriting and > relaying in some combination? http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html > 1) The e-mail address arriving must be a real user (i.e. all addre

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

George Vilches wrote: The question: Is it possible to have a domain do address rewriting and relaying in some combination? The network structure is as follows: All mail goes to a single border gateway server, which is the one that all of the following will talk about. From this gateway, mail

Re: Redundant remote server

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:04 AM, bsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello folks, > > > I am actually working for an African country where the electricity is not as > stable as one could expect - even in the infrastructure of the historical > telco operator… > > With all the care that we have been abl

Server equivilent of smtp_tls_policy_maps

Good day, I am interested in the smtpd equiv of smtp_tls_policy_maps. What I want to do in only accept email from certain sites if it is encrypted. Don't accept mail from these sites if it is not encrypted. Is this possible? Thanks in advance, Grant Pardon this rubbish:

Re: Fwd: preventing backscatter with virtual_alias_maps

D G Teed a écrit : > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > D G Teed a écrit : > > I'd like to see an example of a set up where we could use > relay_domains > > and provide the flexibility of sending to any of our inbox s

Re: Fwd: preventing backscatter with virtual_alias_maps

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:08 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > yes, the term "virtual" is overloaded. and one may ask what is not > virtual in networking/computing. but that's it. you can't change names > when they are widely used. There are examples in other areas: > > Agree! The "loc

Re: Server equivilent of smtp_tls_policy_maps

Grant Sturgis wrote: Good day, I am interested in the smtpd equiv of smtp_tls_policy_maps. What I want to do in only accept email from certain sites if it is encrypted. Don't accept mail from these sites if it is not encrypted. Is this possible? Thanks in advance, Grant

Re: Server equivilent of smtp_tls_policy_maps

> > I am interested in the smtpd equiv of > > smtp_tls_policy_maps. > > > > What I want to do in only accept email from certain sites if it is > > encrypted. Don't accept mail from these sites if it is not > encrypted. > > Sort of. > > The simplest use is either a check_client_access or

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

On Nov 24, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Noel Jones wrote: This document should be helpful: http://www.postfix.org/SOHO_README.html I reviewed this document carefully, but it didn't seem to quite cover my use case. Given that, here's what our current virtual tables look like (the last entry was cha

Hiding Internal Mail Servers

Hey all, I'm trying to hide our internal mail servers from the message headers of outbound email. I've done some reading about this and have found two solutions: 1. Using masquerade_domains like this http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html#masquerade 2. Use header_checks like thi

Re: Hiding Internal Mail Servers

Sturgis, Grant: > Hey all, > > I'm trying to hide our internal mail servers from the message headers of > outbound email. I've done some reading about this and have found two > solutions: > > 1. Using masquerade_domains like this > http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html#masquerade

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

George Vilches a écrit : > > Okay, I've updated my example to consider this, although the outcome is > the same. > > cat /etc/postfix/virtual.cf: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PRO

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

On Nov 24, 2008, at 7:50 PM, mouss wrote: *snip* So far, so good. Now, we try: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = relays internally like the others above. How can I prevent this from happening? [EMAIL PROTECTED]/org does not have a valid virtual resolution, and does not exist in relay_recipient_maps, and

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

George Vilches: > Is there something else in Postfix I can do that could force the > address resolution to be fully resolved before relaying? Yes. Do not use wild-card rewriting rules (@xxx -> @yyy) and list all valid recipients in appropriate tables. - List recipients in virtual_alias_maps for

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: George Vilches: Is there something else in Postfix I can do that could force the address resolution to be fully resolved before relaying? Yes. Do not use wild-card rewriting rules (@xxx -> @yyy) and list all valid recipients in appropriate ta

Re: Address rewrite while relaying

George Vilches: > > On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > George Vilches: > >> Is there something else in Postfix I can do that could force the > >> address resolution to be fully resolved before relaying? > > > > Yes. Do not use wild-card rewriting rules (@xxx -> @yyy) and list

multiple ISP relays based on content?

Can I configure postfix to relay outgoing mail to different ISPs based on To: header? Why? Suppose I have different accounts with different ISPs and s u b - s c r i b e to different mailing lists via different accounts. (Apparently I can't use that word above without having my mail rejected

Re: Redundant remote server

On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 13:04 +0100, bsd wrote: > Hello folks, > > > I am actually working for an African country where the electricity is > not as stable as one could expect - even in the infrastructure of the > historical telco operator… > > With all the care that we have been able to devot

relayhost vs. smtp_fallback_relay

Hi - Is there a way of telling postfix always to use the configured smtp backup relay, regardless of the response code provided by the target mail server? Background: I know that there are better ways, but for (personal) budget reasons I am running postfix on a dial-up DSL connection with changing

Re[2]: relayhost vs. smtp_fallback_relay

>> My question is: My relay host is only allowing a certain number of >> relayed mails per month. So rather than sending everything through the R> What about your ISP's SMTP server, Yep, there's a limit (for non-arcor addresses, if I remember correctly). But do I read your response correctly that

Re: Postfix listening on 25, unable to telnet to 25 - my first config

if you're connecting from a windoze machine, check the firewall (and antivirus, netsecurity, whatever crappy stuff) settings of the windoze machine. I've seen instances where outgoing connections to port 25 were being blocked by some Symantec product, or even the windoze firewall itself... (iirc)