* Roman Gelfand :
> Is it preferable that machine running postfix should have publlic
> address as opposed NATed address?
That depends on what you want to use it for
> It appears that as postfix handing control to various plugins, the
> source address of the message is 127.0.0.1. Is there a co
Hiho,
I'm using debian 4.0r6 / postfix / postgrey ...
This works really fine for 99+% of emailsenders
>From time to time I get
Nov 11 09:01:54 grey2 postfix/smtpd[28926]: lost connection after RSET from
unknown[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
... and users complaining about not being able to receive email f
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Roman Gelfand :
>
>> Is it preferable that machine running postfix should have publlic
>> address as opposed NATed address?
>
> That depends on what you want to use it for
>
I want to use it to filter spam and to send ham to internal
Zitat von Braun Björn :
Hiho,
I'm using debian 4.0r6 / postfix / postgrey ...
This works really fine for 99+% of emailsenders
From time to time I get
Nov 11 09:01:54 grey2 postfix/smtpd[28926]: lost connection after
RSET from unknown[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
This has probably nothing to do with
* Roman Gelfand :
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
> wrote:
> > * Roman Gelfand :
> >
> >> Is it preferable that machine running postfix should have publlic
> >> address as opposed NATed address?
> >
> > That depends on what you want to use it for
> >
>I want to use it to fi
I've been doing ha-proxy setups with apache and spamassassin for
a while and co-maintained some exim (oops, I used the 'e' word ;-)
based mail servers also.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 01:21:13PM +0530, Manoj Burande wrote:
> I am trying to setup a Postfix Mail Server on Fedora10. I am trying
>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Manoj Burande
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I am trying to setup a Postfix Mail Server on Fedora10. I am trying
> to learn the basic process of setting up and manage a Postfix Mail
> Server. Also trying to build a High-Available Postfix Mail Server
> set. I have alre
My logs (mail.log)
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: connect from unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]: 450 4.7.1 : Recipient address rejected:
Greylisted, see http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/help/aaa.DE
Zitat von Braun Björn :
My logs (mail.log)
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: connect from
unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]: 450 4.7.1 : Recipient
address rejected: Greylisted, see
http://isg.ee.e
Braun Björn wrote:
My logs (mail.log)
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: connect from unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]: 450 4.7.1
: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted, see
http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools
Zitat von Eero Volotinen :
Braun Björn wrote:
My logs (mail.log)
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: connect from
unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]
Nov 5 10:07:56 grey2 postfix/smtpd[7153]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from unknown[ddd.dd.ddd.dd]: 450 4.7.1 : Recipient
address rejected: Greylisted
--- On Thu, 11/26/09, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> From: Victor Duchovni
> Subject: Re: CMD tool to check if next SMTP hop can use TLS for messages?
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Date: Thursday, November 26, 2009, 3:33 PM
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 05:02:33AM
> -0800, Harakiri wrote:
> I have
On 11/26/2009 9:43 PM, sosogh wrote:
Hi list
I am running two postfix on two servers.One acts as smtp tls client,
the other one acts as smtpd tls server.
I tried to send mails from smtp tls client to smtpd tls server
---
IP are
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 06:56:16AM -0800, Harakiri wrote:
> > What problem are you actually trying to solve?
>
> I know about all the difficulties with MX lookup etc, the original
> goal would be - that i have a policy for external domains - and that
> for certain domains a message should only be
Harakiri:
> I know about all the difficulties with MX lookup etc, the original
> goal would be - that i have a policy for external domains - and
> that for certain domains a message should only be sent if TLS is
> available - if a message to a certain domain is sent which does
> not support TLS - i
Hello,
I have a Postfix mail server that needs to be set for two content filters as I
have two content filters.
One from AmaVis and another a custom content filter.
Please suggest some idea for configuring both on same Postfix.
Is it possible too?
Thanks in advance.
Ashish Sharma
At Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:51:15 +0100, mouss wrote:
Subject: Re: Multiple Mail domains for reverse ptr records? I'm confused
>
> do not confuse this with "multihoming", where you assign multiple IPs to
> a single name (that is, you use multiple A for a single name).
Why d so many people who should
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
> I have a Postfix mail server that needs to be set for two content filters as
> I have two content filters.
>
> One from AmaVis and another a custom content filter.
Can you not have amavis feed to your second content filter, which will
in t
Peter,
I don't know how to do it, please post some sample for doing what you are
suggesting.
Ashish
-Original Message-
From: petermbl...@gmail.com [mailto:petermbl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Blair
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 11:23 PM
To: Sharma, Ashish
Cc: postfix users list
Greg A. Woods:
> There _should_ be one PTR for every _valid_ hostname using a given IP
> address.
Statements such as above remind me of silly knights fighting windmills.
There is a difference between "right" and "useful", and it even
depends on where they are used - server or client side.
Multip
Wietse Venema:
> Greg A. Woods:
> > There _should_ be one PTR for every _valid_ hostname using a given IP
> > address.
>
> Statements such as above remind me of silly knights fighting windmills.
>
> There is a difference between "right" and "useful", and it even
> depends on where they are used -
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 11/27/2009 6:20 AM:
> Then it of course needs a publich IP addresses
Or, at least, a public IP NAT/PAT'd to it by your firewall. It will
also obviously need PTR, A, and MX records.
Also, this may be helpful:
http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.htm
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sharma, Ashish wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I don't know how to do it, please post some sample for doing what you are
> suggesting.
Read an Amavis document, and instead of pointing it to the postfix
reinjection port, send it to your other content filter.
Brian Mathis put forth on 11/27/2009 7:49 AM:
> I'm sure others can help with the HA setup, but I must say that you
> should not be building a server (especially an HA one!) based on any
> Fedora distro. Fedora is Redhat's testbed where they use very beta
> software and is also mainly targeted fo
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 11/27/2009 6:20 AM:
>
>> Then it of course needs a publich IP addresses
>
> Or, at least, a public IP NAT/PAT'd to it by your firewall. It will
> also obviously need PTR, A, and MX records.
>
> Also, this may be
Well, I see no reason to have a MTA running on a public IP. As stated
above in the thread, as long as your server is HELO'ing out as the
name associated with the PTR record for its SRC-NAT, then you should
be fine.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 03:42:56PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 11/27/2009 6:20 AM:
> >
> >> Then it of course needs a publich IP addresses
> >
> > Or, at least, a public IP NAT/PAT'd to it by your firewall.
/dev/rob0 put forth on 11/27/2009 3:13 PM:
> I am equally at a loss, and could turn the question back at you: is
> there any reason why I would want to run Postfix behind NAT?
Inbound NAT/PAT are often confused, because they're implemented (from an
admin's standpoint) in an almost identical way.
Greg A. Woods a écrit :
At Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:51:15 +0100, mouss wrote:
Subject: Re: Multiple Mail domains for reverse ptr records? I'm confused
I didn't wrote this. if you can't use a mailer correctly, try an easier
sport. A friend of mine recently told me bowling is easy. I'm not sure,
bu
Stan Hoeppner:
> I'm running my Postfix firewall behind NAT/PAT and the setup didn't
> require any non-default Postfix settings to make it work. I port
> forwarded TCP 25 from my router to my internal Postfix host IP and all
> worked without issue. What settings are you referring to?
proxy_inter
--- On Fri, 11/27/09, Wietse Venema wrote:
> From: Wietse Venema
> Subject: Re: CMD tool to check if next SMTP hop can use TLS for messages?
> To: "Postfix users"
> Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 11:14 AM
> Harakiri:
>
> 1) Configure the Postfix SMTP client to REQUIRE TLS.
>
> smtp_t
Harakiri:
> > 1) Configure the Postfix SMTP client to REQUIRE TLS.
> >
> > ? ? smtp_tls_security_level=encrypt
>
> no - as i said, my filer has own rules and can be based on recipient, sender,
> or a combination of both - postfix cant do this, or at least not without
> different policy servers
I have two maps, ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-mailRoutingAddress.cf and
ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-mail.cf
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases, ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-mailRoutingAddress.cf,
ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-mail.cf
sender_canonical_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-mail.cf
This way,
* For users without an
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/27/2009 5:17 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> I'm running my Postfix firewall behind NAT/PAT and the setup didn't
>> require any non-default Postfix settings to make it work. I port
>> forwarded TCP 25 from my router to my internal Postfix host IP and all
>> worked without iss
At Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:16:58 +0100, mouss wrote:
Subject: Re: Multiple Mail domains for reverse ptr records? I'm confused
>
> Greg A. Woods a écrit :
> > At Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:51:15 +0100, mouss wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Multiple Mail domains for reverse ptr records? I'm confused
>
> I didn't w
At Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:18:15 -0500 (EST), wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema)
wrote:
Subject: Re: Multiple Mail domains for reverse ptr records? I'm confused
>
> Wietse Venema:
> > Greg A. Woods:
> > > There _should_ be one PTR for every _valid_ hostname using a given IP
> > > address.
> >
> >
36 matches
Mail list logo
