2009. 10. 3, 12.39 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 12:16:26PM +0200, Laszlo Kupor wrote:
>
> > This situation in Postfix environment different.
> > Postfix after accept mail query all domains (domain1,2,3) MX and sends
> > email in separate SMTP session per domain name also if s
rbl_reply_maps overrides default_rbl_reply for blacklist/response code
pairs listed in the referenced lookup tables.
Is it possible to specify a numeric code which is NOT a reject code,
thereby realizing a DNS whitelist?
Stefan
* Stefan Förster :
> rbl_reply_maps overrides default_rbl_reply for blacklist/response code
> pairs listed in the referenced lookup tables.
>
> Is it possible to specify a numeric code which is NOT a reject code,
> thereby realizing a DNS whitelist?
Clarifying: I know I cannot return "accept", "d
Hallo postfix-users,
* Stefan Förster :
> * Stefan Förster :
>> rbl_reply_maps overrides default_rbl_reply for blacklist/response code
>> pairs listed in the referenced lookup tables.
>>
>> Is it possible to specify a numeric code which is NOT a reject code,
>> thereby realizing a DNS whitelist?
Good day.
I do not from whence (I see no client connection from /var/log/mail.log) the
weird letters come, but I see them as:
postfix/qmgr[2589]: 4B59323B3A: from=<>, size=3751, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
latter then they are sent:
postfix/smtp[]: 4B59323B3A: to=, relay=none, delay=147396,
del
Stefan F?rster:
> Hallo postfix-users,
>
> * Stefan F?rster :
> > * Stefan F?rster :
> >> rbl_reply_maps overrides default_rbl_reply for blacklist/response code
> >> pairs listed in the referenced lookup tables.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to specify a numeric code which is NOT a reject code,
> >> t
Stefan Förster a écrit :
> * Stefan Förster :
>> rbl_reply_maps overrides default_rbl_reply for blacklist/response code
>> pairs listed in the referenced lookup tables.
>>
>> Is it possible to specify a numeric code which is NOT a reject code,
>> thereby realizing a DNS whitelist?
>
> Clarifying:
Sthu Pous:
> Good day.
>
> I do not from whence (I see no client connection from /var/log/mail.log) the
> weird letters come, but I see them as:
>
> postfix/qmgr[2589]: 4B59323B3A: from=<>, size=3751, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>
> latter then they are sent:
>
> postfix/smtp[]: 4B59323B3A: to=,
Sthu Pous a écrit :
> Good day.
>
> I do not from whence (I see no client connection from /var/log/mail.log) the
> weird letters come, but I see them as:
>
> postfix/qmgr[2589]: 4B59323B3A: from=<>, size=3751, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
>
> latter then they are sent:
>
> postfix/smtp[]: 4B59323
Dave T?ht:
> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>
> > Dave Taht:
> >> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
> >>
> >> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
> >> MX 10 mytinyarmbox.example.org # if not, try my arm box
> >> MX 20 mysm
I have found a tutorial to configure postfix for:
Internal emails:
- Cannot send external emails
- Can send internal emails
- Can receive external emails
- Can receive internal emails
External emails:
- Can send external emails
- Can send internal emails
- Can receive external email
2009/10/4 Peter Macko :
> I have found a tutorial to configure postfix for:
>
> Internal emails:
> - Cannot send external emails
> - Can send internal emails
> - Can receive external emails
> - Can receive internal emails
>
> External emails:
> - Can send external emails
> - Can send internal email
How can I achieve:
- internal users cannot receive emails from internet?
For example using non public dns record or using (check_recipient_access)
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/block-all
and block-all contains:
em...@address permit_mynetworks,rej
Wietse Venema:
> > Problem 2) My smarthost is only smart enough to try sending to one other
> > relay (I think).
>
> If the machine sends mail to a less preferred MX host than itself,
> then it is badly borked. To pull that off with Postfix you would
> have to turn off DNS or override the routing
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Laszlo Kupor wrote:
> 2009. 10. 3, 12.39 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 12:16:26PM +0200, Laszlo Kupor wrote:
> >
> > > This situation in Postfix environment different.
> > > Postfix after accept mail query all domains (domain1,2,3) MX and sends
> > > em
I see that spamhaus is adding a 127.0.0.3 IP response for snowshoe
spammers. Will postfix block these?
Just how does postfix process zen responses?
--
Glenn English
g...@slsware.com
* ghe :
> I see that spamhaus is adding a 127.0.0.3 IP response for snowshoe
> spammers. Will postfix block these?
That depends of how you configured postfix!
> Just how does postfix process zen responses?
That depends of how you configured postfix!
How did you configure postfix?
--
Ralf H
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, ghe wrote:
> I see that spamhaus is adding a 127.0.0.3 IP response for snowshoe
> spammers. Will postfix block these?
It depends on whether you query the appropriate spamhaus RBL in Postfix.
> Just how does postfix process zen responses?
Just as it processes any RBL respons
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> How did you configure postfix?
To shorten the riddle:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
uses the snowshoes automatically,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.1
etc. doesn't. But people using above syntax usually know what they're
doing (since they're picking spe
Hello
I have a problem with my users have the bad habit of sending and
forwarding messages to multiple users making it a string of messages.
putting in the line of "To" or "CC" all recipients ..
I wonder if you can make a script to check if the destination is more
than 10 email addresses
Another subject of consultation, I have implemented bogofilter in my
work, I have been trained according to the documentation at this point
that the messages marked as SPAM and HAM, the second step would be to
take a decision to the marked messages.
How could move messages marked as spam th
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Dave T?ht:
>> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>>
>> > Dave Taht:
>> >> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
>> >>
>> >> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
>> >> MX 10 mytinyarmb
mic...@casa.co.cu a écrit :
> Another subject of consultation, I have implemented bogofilter in my
> work, I have been trained according to the documentation at this point
> that the messages marked as SPAM and HAM, the second step would be to
> take a decision to the marked messages.
>
> How coul
mic...@casa.co.cu a écrit :
>
> Hello
>
> I have a problem with my users have the bad habit of sending and
> forwarding messages to multiple users making it a string of messages.
> putting in the line of "To" or "CC" all recipients ..
>
> I wonder if you can make a script to check if the destina
On Sunday 04 October 2009 11:24:31 mic...@casa.co.cu wrote:
> Another subject of consultation, I have implemented bogofilter in
> my work, I have been trained according to the documentation at
> this point that the messages marked as SPAM and HAM, the second
> step would be to take a decision to th
On Oct 4, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org
uses the snowshoes automatically,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org=127.0.0.1
I'm using the former. I didn't even know about the second one.
Thanks, and thanks to Sahil, too, for the link into the expl
On 2009-10-02 Augusto Casagrande wrote:
> Sorry my mistake , it was actually postconf -n (as you can see , there
> are no default options).
>
> The users mailboxes are in the LAN MTA
>
> The route for inbound is : Internet->MX->DMZ MTA->LAN MTA
Is your DMZ server supposed to be the MX or do you
2009. 10. 4, vasárnap keltezéssel 11.27-kor Sahil Tandon ezt írta:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Laszlo Kupor wrote:
>
> > 2009. 10. 3, 12.39 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 12:16:26PM +0200, Laszlo Kupor wrote:
> > >
> > > > This situation in Postfix environment different.
> > >
* Wietse Venema :
> Stefan F?rster:
>> Hallo postfix-users,
>>
>> * Stefan F?rster :
>>> * Stefan F?rster :
rbl_reply_maps overrides default_rbl_reply for blacklist/response code
pairs listed in the referenced lookup tables.
Is it possible to specify a numeric code which is NO
/dev/rob0 a écrit :
> On Sunday 04 October 2009 11:24:31 mic...@casa.co.cu wrote:
>> Another subject of consultation, I have implemented bogofilter in
>> my work, I have been trained according to the documentation at
>> this point that the messages marked as SPAM and HAM, the second
>> step would b
Ansgar Wiechers a écrit :
> On 2009-10-02 Augusto Casagrande wrote:
>> Sorry my mistake , it was actually postconf -n (as you can see , there
>> are no default options).
>>
>> The users mailboxes are in the LAN MTA
>>
>> The route for inbound is : Internet->MX->DMZ MTA->LAN MTA
>
> Is your DMZ ser
Terry Gilsenan
Corporate IT Manager
InterOil Corporation
P: +61 (7) 4046-4698
M: +61 417-600-360
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On
Behalf Of mouss [mo...@ml.netoyen.net]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2009 7:01 AM
To: post
On 2009-10-04 mouss wrote:
> Ansgar Wiechers a écrit:
>> On 2009-10-02 Augusto Casagrande wrote:
>>> Sorry my mistake , it was actually postconf -n (as you can see ,
>>> there are no default options).
>>>
>>> The users mailboxes are in the LAN MTA
>>>
>>> The route for inbound is : Internet->MX->DM
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-10-04 mouss wrote:
>
>> anyway, it is ok to relay mail from the DMZ to the LAN.
>
> No.
Why?
--
Sahil Tandon
On 2009-10-04 Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-10-04 mouss wrote:
>>
>>> anyway, it is ok to relay mail from the DMZ to the LAN.
>>
>> No.
>
> Why?
Because violating the DMZ is never okay without a Damn Good Reason(tm).
That's firewalling 101. If you
On Sunday 04 October 2009 15:57:30 mouss wrote:
> /dev/rob0 a écrit :
> > On Sunday 04 October 2009 11:24:31 mic...@casa.co.cu wrote:
> >> Another subject of consultation, I have implemented bogofilter in
> >> my work, I have been trained according to the documentation at
> >> this point that the m
Wietse Venema wrote:
Paul Cockings:
Wietse Venema wrote:
Paul Cockings:
Hi list, i'm looking for a bit of help,
I use one of my postfix boxes as a sort-of smart host relay. One of the
destinations is currently unreachable as an IP connection is down and
will be fixed in
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-10-04 Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-04 mouss wrote:
> >>
> >>> anyway, it is ok to relay mail from the DMZ to the LAN.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because violating the DMZ is never o
Sahil Tandon:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>
> > On 2009-10-04 Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > > On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> > >> On 2009-10-04 mouss wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> anyway, it is ok to relay mail from the DMZ to the LAN.
> > >>
> > >> No.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/4/2009 5:28 PM:
> I appreciate the adherence to Firewalling 101 (something you have
> preached before on security-basics), but common sense and practical
> issues might impel one to make an exception and allow port 25 *only*
> from Outside Postfix -> Inside Postfix.
>
On 2009-10-04 Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-10-04 Sahil Tandon wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-10-04 mouss wrote:
> anyway, it is ok to relay mail from the DMZ to the LAN.
No.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Beca
On 2009-10-04 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Sahil Tandon put forth on 10/4/2009 5:28 PM:
>> I appreciate the adherence to Firewalling 101 (something you have
>> preached before on security-basics), but common sense and practical
>> issues might impel one to make an exception and allow port 25 *only*
>> fr
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-10-04 Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-04 Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-10-04 mouss wrote:
> > anyway, it is ok to relay mail from the
Hi,
I just made a typo writting a filter in an LDAP table: i typed s%
instead of %s:
query_filter = (&(mail=s%)(csimAccountPermission=mail)(!(uid=vw)))
should be:
query_filter = (&(mail=%s)(csimAccountPermission=mail)(!(uid=vw)))
as a result, postmap would coredump (and eventually mail w
44 matches
Mail list logo
