Hello,
I just want to check up on something ...
I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to
get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with
forged from addresses.
Today I still run my own mail server but I don't see any of this
backscatter anymor
Matt Richards:
> Hello,
>
> I just want to check up on something ...
>
> I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to
> get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with
> forged from addresses.
>
> Today I still run my own mail server but I don't s
Zitat von Wietse Venema :
Matt Richards:
Hello,
I just want to check up on something ...
I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to
get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with
forged from addresses.
Today I still run my own mail server b
ÿóÿýIÿóÿýE-Version: 1.0
NAÿóÿýE OPEN_ÿóÿýODE
- --
The mail start from a AIX server and send to relay with telnet on the smtp port.
But the mail arrive with wrong character.
The problem is of the script or of the postfix server?
Thanks,
Jacopo
--
Linux, Windows Xp ed MS
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:51:08AM +, Matt Richards wrote:
> Does anybody know what happened? Have servers just been
> reconfigured to not send backscatter from spam?
Here in the YMMV department ...
My little server hosts a few small Free Software community projects,
one of which is a small (
Jacopo Cappelli:
> IE-Version: 1.0
>
>
> NAE OPEN_ODE
> - --
What is that?
> The mail start from a AIX server and send to relay with telnet on
> the smtp port. But the mail arrive with wrong character. The
> problem is of the script or of the postfix s
Thanks. I owe you one. That seems to have fixed it.
On Oct 29, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Dennis Putnam wrote:
That is a relief when I get to the new version.
In the mean time I am still having trouble with the workaround. My
config
Hello folks,
I've got some checks setup like that :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
reject_
Simon Morvan:
> I notice that event if the recipient address doesn't exists, the
> check_policy_service (greylist) got evaluated, causing higher load than
> needed. Isn't reject_unauth_destination there to block inexistent
> recipients ?
No, that's what reject_unlisted_recipient is for.
--
R
On Friday 30 October 2009 09:52:44 Simon Morvan wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I've got some checks setup like that :
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>reject_non_fqdn_sender,
>reject_unknown_sender_domain,
>reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
>reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
>permit_mynet
Viktor,
Hi
Thanks for your guidance. Would please keep an eye on this thread? I am
going to test the configuration using a properly configured GSSAPI client.
Possibly, there will be much more questions to ask ;)
Thank you so much.
Kind Regards
Ali Majdzadeh Kohbanani
2009/10/29 Victor Duchovni
System: FreeBSD-7.2
I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
# Enable clamav-milter
milter_default_action = accept
smtpd_milters = unix:/var/run/clamav/clmilter.sock
srwxr-xr-x 1 clamav wheel 0B Oct 30 10:22
Jerry a écrit :
> System: FreeBSD-7.2
>
> I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
> clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
>
>
> # Enable clamav-milter
> milter_default_action = accept
> smtpd_milters = unix:/var/run/clamav/clmilter.sock
>
>
> srwxr-xr-
Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit :
On Friday 30 October 2009 09:52:44 Simon Morvan wrote:
Hello folks,
I've got some checks setup like that :
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:26:10 +0100
Erwan David replied:
>Jerry a écrit :
>> System: FreeBSD-7.2
>>
>> I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
>> clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
>>
>>
>> # Enable clamav-milter
>> milter_default_action = accept
>>
Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:26:10 +0100
> Erwan David replied:
>
>> Jerry a écrit :
>>> System: FreeBSD-7.2
>>>
>>> I just updated to clamav-0.95.3 on my system. I then realized that
>>> clamav-milter and Postfix were no longer connecting.
>>>
>>>
>>> # Enable clamav-milter
>>> milter_
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:12:40 +0100
Erwan David replied:
[snip]
>Mine is
>
>srwxr-xr-x 1 postfix clamav - 0 Oct 30 15:15
>/var/run/clamav/clmilter.sock
>
>
>In the port this is controlled by
>clamav_milter_socket_user="postfix"
I changed the permissions on mine to: 0777. I figured it was easi
Barney Desmond wrote:
> 2009/10/30 Seth Mattinen :
>> Keith Palmer wrote:
>>> OK, thanks... but that doesn't answer my question.
>>>
> Is it possible to configure Postfix for SMTP-AUTH *without* using
> SASL/PAM?
>>> I'd like to *not run SASL at all* rather than have it do the lookups.
>>>
I would like to confirm my understanding about access files.
Please let me know if any of this is not correct...
The man (5) access description describes a prototype file, where that
file could be a single file describing any host names, network
addresses, envelope senders or recipient addresses.
Hi,
If I compile with TLS Support I get following errror, ssl.h is in
/usr/local/openssl and libsslo/libcyrpto.o are in /usr/lib.
compile options are:
SYSTYPE = LINUX2
AR = ar
ARFL= rv
RANLIB = ranlib
SYSLIBS = -lldap -llber -lpcre -lsasl2 -lssl -lcrypto -ldb -lnsl -lresolv -ldb
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 07:15:11PM +0100, Carnac wrote:
> If I compile with TLS Support I get following errror, ssl.h is in
> /usr/local/openssl and libsslo/libcyrpto.o are in /usr/lib.
That's "libcrypto.a", not "libcyrto.o" of course. And if you find headers
in /usr/local/openssl but librar
Simon Morvan wrote:
>> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL,
>> which has been very effective here.
>>
> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
> changed, I'll
Markus Schönhaber put forth on 10/30/2009 10:05 AM:
> Simon Morvan:
>
>> I notice that event if the recipient address doesn't exists, the
>> check_policy_service (greylist) got evaluated, causing higher load than
>> needed. Isn't reject_unauth_destination there to block inexistent
>> recipients
On 10/30/2009 12:55 PM, Robert Lopez wrote:
I would like to confirm my understanding about access files.
Please let me know if any of this is not correct...
The man (5) access description describes a prototype file, where that
file could be a single file describing any host names, network
addre
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 10/30/2009 2:23 PM:
> I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
> needs to implement depends on whether one uses local deliver?
Should have proofread that... I meant I do not have
reject_unlisted_recipient defined. However, the docs say it's
Stan Hoeppner:
> I only have reject_unauth_destination on my relay-only server, and
> sending to an invalid recipient address returns:
>
> 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown
> in relay recipient table
>
> I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
> ne
On 10/30/2009 2:28 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 10/30/2009 2:23 PM:
I don't have reject_unauth_destination. I guess which parameter one
needs to implement depends on whether one uses local deliver?
Should have proofread that... I meant I do not have
reject_unlisted_re
Simon Morvan put forth on 10/30/2009 10:39 AM:
> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
> changed, I'll give it another try.
Would you please elaborate a bit on this? Most of the listings in
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
Simon Morvan wrote:
The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
changed, I'll give it another try.
Can you please tell me why an ADSL user would send legit
Larry Stone wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Mikael Bak wrote:
>
>> Simon Morvan wrote:
>>> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind
>>> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it
>>> changed, I'll give it another try.
>>
>> Can you please te
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 10/30/2009 12:55 PM, Robert Lopez wrote:
>>
>> I would like to confirm my understanding about access files.
>>
>> Please let me know if any of this is not correct...
>>
>> The man (5) access description describes a prototype file, where that
Matt Richards さんは書きました:
> Hello,
>
> I just want to check up on something ...
>
> I run my own mail servers, using postfix and a few years ago I use to
> get quite a lot of backscatter due to spam messages being sent out with
> forged from addresses.
>
> Today I still run my own mail server but
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
> It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
> this association.
Organization and ease of management for one. For example:
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access
check_clie
On 10/30/2009 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
this association.
Organization and ease of management for one. For example:
smtpd_client_restrictions =
check_recipient_acces
On 10/30/2009 6:57 PM, Robert Lopez wrote:
Postfix places no limit on how many maps you can use, but there is system
overhead with each map. Rule of thumb is to combine maps wherever possible
-- don't use two check_sender_access statements if you can do it with one.
The smart way to do this is u
Noel Jones put forth on 10/30/2009 11:50 PM:
> On 10/30/2009 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Robert Lopez put forth on 10/30/2009 6:57 PM:
>>
>>> It is not clear to me what the benefit of multiple files is beyond
>>> this association.
>>
>> Organization and ease of management for one. For example
On 10/31/2009 12:32 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
All these cidr maps are a great example of separate tables that should
be combined into a single table with a Makefile.
Interesting. I may take a look into Makefile some time. I was unaware
of it until today. Just out of curiosity, how does puttin
37 matches
Mail list logo
