* LuKreme :
> I was looking at the default levels for anvil and unless I am
> misunderstanding (likely) they seem really high.
>
>smtpd_client_connection_count_limit (default: 50)
>The maximum number of connections that an SMTP client
>may make simultaneously.
>
> So, a single client
On 17-Mar-2009, at 08:52, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01:53AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/17/2009 9:43 AM, Erwan David wrote:
You may generate the pcre file with a line
/recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
for each valid recipient. This w
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:14, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/19/2009 5:55 AM, LuKreme wrote:
I came up with this one liner:
$ ls -1 /usr/local/virtual/ | grep "@" | sed
's/^\([...@]*\)@\(.*\)$/\/^\1_\(.*\)@\2$\/ \1+$...@\2/'
testu...@example.com => /^testuser_(.*)@example.com$/
testuser+$...@example.c
LuKreme:
> My server is pretty light weight, and I don't tend to get too many
> floods of spammers, but are these defaults reasonable to mitigate the
> damage that a flood might do? Are these defaults anything a normal
> user is ever going to hit?
A normal user is NEVER going to hit these l
LuKreme:
> On 17-Mar-2009, at 08:52, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01:53AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> >> On 3/17/2009 9:43 AM, Erwan David wrote:
> >>> You may generate the pcre file with a line
> >>> /recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
> >>>
On 3/19/2009 5:55 AM, LuKreme wrote:
You may generate the pcre file with a line
/recipient_([...@_]+)@localdomain/recipient+$...@localdomain
for each valid recipient. This would preserve the validation of
recipient at RCPT TO stage.
>>> Interesting... and maybe a good
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:45, Wietse Venema wrote:
$ ls -1 /usr/local/virtual/ | grep "@" | sed 's/^\([...@]*\)@\(.*\)$/
\/
^\1_\(.*\)@\2$\/ \1+$...@\2/'
testu...@example.com => /^testuser_(.*)@example.com$/ testuser+$...@example.com
This is BROKEN. You are not escaping any of the regexp metacha
LuKreme wrote:
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
LuKreme:
My server is pretty light weight, and I don't tend to get too many
floods of spammers, but are these defaults reasonable to mitigate the
damage that a flood might do? Are these defaults anything a normal
user is ever going
On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:44, Wietse Venema wrote:
LuKreme:
My server is pretty light weight, and I don't tend to get too many
floods of spammers, but are these defaults reasonable to mitigate the
damage that a flood might do? Are these defaults anything a normal
user is ever going to hit?
A norm
LuKreme:
> On 19-Mar-2009, at 04:45, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> $ ls -1 /usr/local/virtual/ | grep "@" | sed 's/^\([...@]*\)@\(.*\)$/
> >> \/
> >> ^\1_\(.*\)@\2$\/ \1+$...@\2/'
> >>
> >> testu...@example.com => /^testuser_(.*)@example.com$/
> >> testuser+$...@example.com
> >
> > This is BROKEN. Y
If I'm reading the documentation correctly, when using
smtp_tls_policy_maps for specific domains, if no servers are available
the email will be deferred? Is there a way to change this to a
permanent failure?
~Cory Coager
-
Hello everybody,
I'm running in a very strange problem.
I've used postfix with saslauthd for a long time but as my server hosts a
local domain and a few virtual domains I could only authenticate local
domain with smtp auth plain, cause I'm using virtual domains flat files.
So my virtual users ca
Cory Coager:
> If I'm reading the documentation correctly, when using
> smtp_tls_policy_maps for specific domains, if no servers are available
> the email will be deferred? Is there a way to change this to a
> permanent failure?
There exists no code to convert a TLS failure into a permanent er
Hello All,
I've been getting spam messages passing through my server because they
are "from" a local user account (spoofed). However, the connection came
from an external source. I'm trying to see if there is a setting in
master.cf (or other .cf file) which will reject any email from an
external
On Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 20:28 CET,
"David A. Gershman" wrote:
> I've been getting spam messages passing through my server because they
> are "from" a local user account (spoofed). However, the connection
> came from an external source. I'm trying to see if there is a setting
> in ma
You have to enable "login" auth mechanism.
In dovecot.conf:
auth default {
# Space separated list of wanted authentication mechanisms:
# plain login digest-md5 cram-md5 ntlm rpa apop anonymous gssapi
# NOTE: See also disable_plaintext_auth setting.
mechanisms = plain login
Steve
On
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of SQL and
IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're looking to not only
improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey signing into the process. The
choice has been made to go with postfix along with a queue direc
Hello,
my old postfix version (postfix-2.2.8) send the instance that match
with this regexp [a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]
the version(postfix-2.5.5) that I'm using now
[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]
is it possible to change the instance= format?
Thanks,
Danilo Paffi Monteiro
Danilo Paffi Monteiro:
> Hello,
>
> my old postfix version (postfix-2.2.8) send the instance that match
> with this regexp [a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]
>
> the version(postfix-2.5.5) that I'm using now
> [a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]+\.[a-f0-9]
>
> is it possible to change the instance= forma
Brandon Hilkert:
> We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
> of SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're
> looking to not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey
> signing into the process. The choice has been made to go with
> postfix
Hi
Im configuring a server with postfix amavisd and spamassassin and appears a
problem with the antispam rules. There are one application that uses the
server to send to different clients mails but the amavisd detect howo to
spam this mails. How I can create an exception? I would like to create a
Simon a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM, mouss wrote:
>> Simon a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Simon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Wietse Venema
wrote:
> You are expanding the virtual aliase BEFORE the Amavis filter,
> and another time afte
Cedric Zeline a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I need some help. I would like to modify incoming emails.
> I need to add a link at top of the incoming mail body, in order to allow
> employees that received their email to click on this link and connect
> directly to our data base to check the client's data.
Wietse Venema a écrit :
> /dev/rob0:
>> On Wed March 18 2009 03:06:40 Pascal Volk wrote:
can i whitelist one domain from checking spamhaus ?
thanks
>>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>> ...
>>> reject_unauth_destination
>>> ...
>>> check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/whitelist_
Paweł Leśniak a écrit :
> W dniu 2009-03-18 14:23, Costin Guşă pisze:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> I've been reading today about;
>>>
>>> reject_unknown_sender_domain
>>>
>>> and I'm wondering if it is only allowed under 'smtpd_sender_restrictions'
>>> whereas I've had it
deconya a écrit :
> Hi
>
> Im configuring a server with postfix amavisd and spamassassin and
> appears a problem with the antispam rules. There are one application
> that uses the server to send to different clients mails but the amavisd
> detect howo to spam this mails. How I can create an except
Thanks for the response.
Our test system is a pretty standard SATA disk with 2GB memory. If disk is
the necessary resource, would we see an immediate benefit by going to a SCSI
disk or even a SCSI array, or does that hardware benefit flatten out at some
point?
As I mentioned, we're using the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
> and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
> simulate sending it out to the internet.
Did you at least take time to rule out th
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:37:31PM -0400, Cory Coager wrote:
> If I'm reading the documentation correctly, when using smtp_tls_policy_maps
> for specific domains, if no servers are available
That is no servers offer TLS, or do offer TLS, but with unsatisfactory
certificates.
> the email will be
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:58:52PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> I would suggest separating relay control from other checks. something like
>
> smtpd_relay_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks
> permit_sasl_authenticated
This has been proposed before.
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archive
30 matches
Mail list logo
