Am 26.12.2009 15:20, schrieb Wietse Venema:
> Robert Schetterer:
>> Hi @ll,
>> merry X-mas
>>
>> i have a webserver with some customers
>> using binary sendmail command deliver out mail to local postfix from the
>> www-data apache with i.e perl scripts, by ignorance of the customers the
>> often do
Hallo,
On Sunday 27 December 2009 00:40:03 Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jan Lühr:
> > virtual_alias_domains = v50993.topnetworks.de
> > virtual_alias_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-aliases.cf
>
> v50993.topnetworks.de is listed in virtual_alias_domains.
>
> Therefore, all users in that domain must exist
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:48 -0600
Stan Hoeppner replied:
>I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent
>valid address harvesting, so if 5321 or any other RFC requires
>accepting VRFY then we are all out of RFC compliance.
3.5.3. Meaning of VRFY or EXPN Success Response
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires
> HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I understand the RFC it
should not be necessary for ETRN (as well as A
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:10:53 +0100
Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires
> > HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
> I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I
Philippe Cerfon:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires
> > HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
> I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I understand the RFC it
> should not be nece
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 06:10:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema
>wrote:
> I don't wanna be nit-picking,.. but as I read through rfc 5321 right
> now, I found some other places where postfix might be not stricly
> speaking compliant... or where t
Quoting John Peach :
No it should not - they know. The RFCs were written way before the
problems we have now. Feel free to update the RFCs if you so wish.
ok,... The problem is however, that it's quite difficult for "normal"
users to find restrictions which are more strict that the default but
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
wrote:
> Regards,
> Philippe
Uhm?! Aren't you Christoph? :-P
The bad face of identity theft ^^
Philippe.
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Without sending EHLO the client cannot know that the server supports
> ETRN, AUTH, etc., therefore such clients are not compliant. Perhaps
> some study of RFC 1869 is in order.
Ah,.. well ok,.. so far I just read the rfc5321 chater on orderin
Quoting Philippe Cerfon :
Regards,
Philippe
Uhm?! Aren't you Christoph? :-P
The bad face of identity theft ^^
Oops,.. ^^ That comes from not cleanly removing quotes ^^
Cheers,
Chris.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet
Hello.
In lasts days one spammer had fun with my email address sending me
hundresds of emails, most of them rejected by postfix anti-spam
measures, but not all.
I will explain the spammer send from internet (without authentication):
from: websurfer at navegants.com
to: websurfer at navegants.com
On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
>> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no
>> legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
>
> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent
> v
Josep M. a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> In lasts days one spammer had fun with my email address sending me
> hundresds of emails, most of them rejected by postfix anti-spam
> measures, but not all.
>
> I will explain the spammer send from internet (without authentication):
>
> from: websurfer at navegan
Michael a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> I am transistioning an ISP from Sendmail to Postfix with MySQL backend.
>
> Mostly this has gone smoothly except that one of the curve balls I have been
> thrown is in respect of their use of the Alias file as follows:
>
> username username, email address
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
> >> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no
> >> legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
> >
> > I
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
>
>> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no legit,
>> nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
>
> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent valid
> ad
Hello.
Thanks!...Your tip Works great!
One question more: You said ".example.com" (with point) What is the
differenceincludes subdomains?
>
> == sender_reject
> example.com REJECT authentication required
> .example.com REJECT authentication required
>
Thanks
Josep
El dom, 27-12
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to
>>> prevent valid address harvesting,
>>
>> Which, of course, is utterly pointless.
>>
>> HELO exampl
On 2009-12-27 Josep M. wrote:
> One question more: You said ".example.com" (with point) What is
> the differenceincludes subdomains?
man 5 access
| domain.tld
| Matches domain.tld.
|
| The pattern domain.tld also matches subdomains, but only when
| the string smtpd_acces
Hi.
I'm still trying to understand some things, so perhaps some of you
could help me.
1) As far as I understood the address rewriting manual, rewriting
(including the app...@origin and append.domain) happens in
cleanup/trivial-rewrite, right?
But I have the impression that at least some r
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >>> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to
> >>> prevent valid address harvest
On Dec 27, 2009, at 4:14 PM, John Peach wrote:
> 502 5.5.1 VRFY command is disabled
>
> just tells you that VRFY has been disabled; not the validity of the
> address.
Far be it from me to speak for Ansgar, but on my postfix server, if VRFY
doesn't work, it's trivial to just say HELO/MAIL FROM/
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the big difference
>> when it comes to address verification. Regardless of whether you use
>> VRFY or MAIL FROM/RCPT TO/QUIT, if the address is invalid the
ry postfix-2.7-20091227-nonprod. If
you have used postscreen(8) or verify(8) before, you will notice
that they weed out lots and lots of expired entries from the
databases while reporting their progress along the way.
The cache cleaning code runs while a postscreen(8) or verify(8)
process is waitin
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:39:35 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the big difference
> >> when it comes to address verification. Regardless of whether you
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:39:35 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
>>> 502 5.5.1 VRFY command is disabled
>>>
>>> just tells you that VRFY has been disabled; not the validity of the
>>> address.
>>
>> You're missing the point. When you f
Hi,
We are noticing couple of strange problems with postfix in our
environment. They are as follows:
We have a relay server, which is extensively used internally in our
organization. This server receives email for one email domain (let's
day domain.com for example) and uses alias tables to route
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Satish Kumar P wrote:
> We are noticing couple of strange problems with postfix in our
> environment. They are as follows:
[ ... ]
Your problem description is useful, but actual logging that corresponds
to your situation and the output of 'postconf -n' are required. Please
I can't get the relay_recipient_maps lookup to ignore the address
extension part of a recipient email address. It's very difficult to
use address extensions together with relay_recipient_maps this way.
Am I missing some configuration setting? I've been searching for it
for about an hour.
-frank
figured it out -- just after sending this. isn't that always the way?
i didn't have recipient_delimiter set on the MX host.
On December 28, 2009 1:05:09 AM -0500 Frank Cusack
wrote:
I can't get the relay_recipient_maps lookup to ignore the address
extension part of a recipient email address.
Is the following configuration directives supported out of the box or do these
require a 3rd party patch? I obtained these from another site, however it
made reference to an RPM file, whereas I am using source so it wasn't clear.
virtual_mailbox_limit = 104857600
virtual_mailbox_limit_override =
32 matches
Mail list logo
