On Sun, 24 May 2009, Thomas Bergstam wrote:
> I have Suse 11.1 which includes Postfix 2.5.5. It is not easy to
> uninstall that (YAST wants to replace it with EXIM or SENDMAIL) due to
> dependencies. Is it possible to just upgrade it if I manually compile
> 2.6.1 and replace the old one? O
Thomas Bergstam schrieb:
> Refering to the earlier subjects on RPMs and 2.6:
>
> I have Suse 11.1 which includes Postfix 2.5.5. It is not easy to
> uninstall that (YAST wants to replace it with EXIM or SENDMAIL) due to
> dependencies. Is it possible to just upgrade it if I manually compile
> 2.6.1
Hello,
I typed the address in a message wrong. Pine copied ot to the
sendmail folder anyway. But postfix saw the message that the
address was wrong and put it in the mailq. (Fair enough).
Question is: can I resnd the message with the correct address
and if yes, how?
Regards,
Hans.
jd
sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes:
> For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able
> to find:
> postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and
> postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update.
Simon
* lists.postfix-us...@duinheks.nl :
> Hello,
>
> I typed the address in a message wrong. Pine copied ot to the
> sendmail folder anyway. But postfix saw the message that the
> address was wrong and put it in the mailq. (Fair enough).
> Question is: can I resnd the message with the correct address
lists.postfix-us...@duinheks.nl:
> Hello,
>
> I typed the address in a message wrong. Pine copied ot to the
> sendmail folder anyway. But postfix saw the message that the
> address was wrong and put it in the mailq. (Fair enough).
> Question is: can I resnd the message with the correct address
> a
> sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes:
>
>> For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able
>> to find:
>> postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and
>> postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
>
> Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update.
>
> Simon
>
>
Thank you S
Thank You for Your time and answer, Wietse:
> Another possiblity is anti-virus software on the sending machine.
I use Linux Debian squeeze/sid - AFAIK I have no any antivirus software.
I, like everyone I'm sure, have seen a large uptick in spam attempts
to Message-Ids as if they were email addresses. Of course they are all
rejected as unknown users, but is it worth putting in a rule to catch
these specifically?
--
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges.
I have the following:
main.cf in smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
check_helo_access pcre:$config_directory/helo_checks.pcre,
in helo_checks.pcre:
/(lan|home|example|local)$/ REJECT Mailserver name in
private namespace
but in logs:
May 23 14:48:17 mail postfix/smtpd[30899]: NOQ
*** Antwoord op een bericht uit gebied LISTS.POSTFIX-USERS
(lists.postfix-users).
Hallo Ralf,
Op zondag 24 mei 2009 schreef Ralf Hildebrandt aan postfix-users@postfix.org:
>> Question is: can I resnd the message with the correct address
>> and if yes, how?
RH> I fail to see how this is a post
*** Antwoord op een bericht uit gebied LISTS.POSTFIX-USERS
(lists.postfix-users).
Hallo Wietse,
Op zondag 24 mei 2009 schreef Wietse Venema aan Postfix users:
>> Question is: can I resnd the message with the correct address
>> and if yes, how?
WV> I assume that the message is still queued bec
Sthu Pous a écrit :
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Wietse:
>
>> Another possiblity is anti-virus software on the sending machine.
>
> I use Linux Debian squeeze/sid - AFAIK I have no any antivirus software.
whatever you use, you have something that breaks ESMTP, and in
particular STARTTLS
LuKreme a écrit :
> I, like everyone I'm sure, have seen a large uptick in spam attempts to
> Message-Ids as if they were email addresses. Of course they are all
> rejected as unknown users, but is it worth putting in a rule to catch
> these specifically?
>
put
reject_unlisted_recipient
On Sun, 24 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> I, like everyone I'm sure, have seen a large uptick in spam attempts to
> Message-Ids as if they were email addresses. Of course they are all
> rejected as unknown users, but is it worth putting in a rule to catch
> these specifically?
That wouldn't add
* mouss :
> Sthu Pous a écrit :
> > Thank You for Your time and answer, Wietse:
> >
> >> Another possiblity is anti-virus software on the sending machine.
> >
> > I use Linux Debian squeeze/sid - AFAIK I have no any antivirus software.
>
> whatever you use, you have something that breaks ESMTP,
LuKreme a écrit :
> I have the following:
>
> main.cf in smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
> check_helo_access pcre:$config_directory/helo_checks.pcre,
>
> in helo_checks.pcre:
> /(lan|home|example|local)$/ REJECT Mailserver name in
> private namespace
>
> but in logs:
> May 23 14:
I have a primary and backup mx both running postfix with assp in front.
Assp performs all spam and recipient verification checks which is working
fine except for a limitation in assp whereby ldap recipient checks are
limited to one server so in the case where these two gateways are authoritative
fo
On Sun, 24 May 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> I have the following:
>
> main.cf in smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
> check_helo_access pcre:$config_directory/helo_checks.pcre,
>
> in helo_checks.pcre:
> /(lan|home|example|local)$/ REJECT Mailserver name in
> private namespace
>
> but in
Hello,
My postfix manages mail for a number of domains, e.g. gtwm.co.uk. The
MX records are set so that mail is filtered through a third party spam
catcher.
However the server has one domain that is the 'main' hostname of the
server, listed in /etc/hosts:
62.73.174.227eul0001189.eu.v
Oliver Kohll - Mailing Lists a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> My postfix manages mail for a number of domains, e.g. gtwm.co.uk. The MX
> records are set so that mail is filtered through a third party spam
> catcher.
>
> However the server has one domain that is the 'main' hostname of the
> server, listed i
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Oliver Kohll - Mailing Lists
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My postfix manages mail for a number of domains, e.g. gtwm.co.uk. The MX
> records are set so that mail is filtered through a third party spam catcher.
>
> However the server has one domain that is the 'main' hostnam
On 24-May-2009, at 15:05, Sahil Tandon wrote:
Hm, that "warn" does not correspond to what you purportedly have in
your
smtpd_recipient_restrictions; it should have been an outright
rejection.
I'd just changed the WARN to REJECT today and the log entry was from
yesterday. It was while doub
On 24-May-2009, at 15:02, mouss wrote:
LuKreme a écrit :
May 23 14:48:17 mail postfix/smtpd[30899]: NOQUEUE: warn: RCPT from
201-88-100-143.gnace704.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br[201.88.100.143]:
Dynamic DSL looking address; from=
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
note that the IP is listed in zen (PBL and XBL
Hi,
In <20090522135110.ga...@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net>
"how to bypass milters, whitelist hosts" on Fri, 22 May 2009 15:51:10 +0200,
martin f krafft wrote:
> how can I bypass smtpd_milters for certain hosts?
>
> I have asked a related question previously [0], and the only
> solution seemed
On Sun, 24 May 2009, lists.postfix-us...@duinheks.nl wrote:
> WV> I assume that the message is still queued because DNS lookup
> WV> fails or because the (wrong) destination is not reachable.
>
> Correct. The domain dhs.nl does not exist. But it's such a habit
> to type that..
The dhs.nl domai
* Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * mouss :
>> and please remove the
>> smtpd_banner = The eMail Service
>> because it is invalid. The banner must contain the hostname... etc.
>
> and it must contain "ESMTP" or the client will not know the server can speak
> EXTENDED SMTP, which includes the capabil
* Oliver Kohll - Mailing Lists :
> Hello,
>
> My postfix manages mail for a number of domains, e.g. gtwm.co.uk. The MX
> records are set so that mail is filtered through a third party spam
> catcher.
>
> However the server has one domain that is the 'main' hostname of the
> server, listed in /
On Mon, 25 May 2009, Stefan Förster wrote:
> * Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > * mouss :
> >> and please remove the
> >> smtpd_banner = The eMail Service
> >> because it is invalid. The banner must contain the hostname... etc.
> >
> > and it must contain "ESMTP" or the client will not know the se
29 matches
Mail list logo
