Thx for the reply.
> While it was intended, no doubt, to be very wrong, it failed. Lacking
> a valid CIDR expression, that only matches the single IPv4 address of
> 0.0.0.0, which, having special meaning in networking, is unroutable.
> A setting of equivalent functionality is "mynetworks =".
>
> T
* richard lucassen :
> Hello list,
>
> I want to send once a week a simple mail to a list of 3000 recipients. I
> can set smtpd_recipient_limit and smtpd_recipient_overshoot_limit to
> higher limits, but is there a better way to handle this?
Use an MLM
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT
Dear all
i've installed a postfix server with mysql support.
i've also set-up a custom filter script shell that calls spamc and
some other custom utils, this script cannot handle multiple
recipients, so i've set
filter_destination_recipient_limit = 1
The problem that i've experienced is that wh
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, nik600 wrote:
> Dear all
>
> i've installed a postfix server with mysql support.
>
> i've also set-up a custom filter script shell that calls spamc and
> some other custom utils, this script cannot handle multiple
> recipients, so i've set
>
> filter_destination_re
Thanks a lot to everyone for suggestions. Couple of questions:
1. I noticed that postfix restarts the appropriate daemons/programs
(smtpd/local) whenever it notices changes in the aliases files. How does it
determine that (based on file's attributes etc.)??
2. Does postfix load the alias table
nik600:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, nik600 wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > i've installed a postfix server with mysql support.
> >
> > i've also set-up a custom filter script shell that calls spamc and
> > some other custom utils, this script cannot handle multiple
> > recipients, so i've set
>
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:00:32PM +0100, richard lucassen wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:28:11 -0600
> Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>
> [mlm]
>
> > I will second that using a real MLM is usually a much, much better
> > option that will allow you to prevent collateral damage to your mail
> > reputati
> richard lucassen :
> This is for a blind person who handles the
> "mailinglist" himself, so solutions are rather limited.
Installing a MLM is quite easy although on a Windows Family box.
--
Architecte Informatique chez Blueline/Gulfsat:
Administration Systeme, Recherche & Developp
On 4 Jan 2010, at 13:43, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> I will chime in with a recommendation for mailman. It is easy to
> setup and run.
I'd suggest mlmmj, it works like ezmlm but doesn't require a web interface like
mailman and works great with Postfix.
Gaby.
--
Expounding the theory of infinit
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> nik600:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, nik600 wrote:
>> > Dear all
>> >
>> > i've installed a postfix server with mysql support.
>> >
>> > i've also set-up a custom filter script shell that calls spamc and
>> > some other custom utils, t
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:01:00 +
Gaby Vanhegan replied:
>I'd suggest mlmmj, it works like ezmlm but doesn't require a web
>interface like mailman and works great with Postfix.
Personally, I have used DADA Mail in the past. It is written in Perl
and has a web interface for most common configurat
On 4 Jan 2010, at 14:53, Jerry wrote:
> Personally, I have used DADA Mail in the past. It is written in Perl
> and has a web interface for most common configuration settings.
> Obviously, it can be configured manually. In fact, some settings are
> not exposed in the web interface. Plus, it works
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:41:18PM +1300, Michael wrote:
> I have not been able to get any message other then "Client did not present a
> certificate" in message headers despite loading a Commodo email certificate
> in to Kmail.
What problem are you trying to solve? Does the Kmail client suppor
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:01:00 +
Gaby Vanhegan wrote:
> > I will chime in with a recommendation for mailman. It is easy to
> > setup and run.
>
>
> I'd suggest mlmmj, it works like ezmlm but doesn't require a web
> interface like mailman and works great with Postfix.
Thnx to everyone. I think
Hello,
I previously posted this thread, but changed midstream and was given
guidance as to the proper way to post. So, I am starting again.
Summary: I would like to ban an address/domain from posting to my system. I
am using header_checks to do that. After creating a header_checks file and
modify
* Christopher Adams :
> Hello,
>
> I previously posted this thread, but changed midstream and was given
> guidance as to the proper way to post. So, I am starting again.
>
> Summary: I would like to ban an address/domain from posting to my system. I
> am using header_checks to do that.
Why? Woul
We are currently in need of a seasoned Postfix professional that can
manage a large Postfix, Procmail, Spamassassin, ClamAV, Linux
environment located in Central New Jersey.
Anyone interested please contact me off list.
After previously posting a thread about header_checks, someone suggested
using check_sender_access, I tried it and posted a follow up and was
admonished for changing direction. I specifically asked how to proceed and
was told to go back to my original thread, which was header_checks.
Message head
* Christopher Adams :
> After previously posting a thread about header_checks, someone suggested
> using check_sender_access, I tried it and posted a follow up and was
> admonished for changing direction. I specifically asked how to proceed and
> was told to go back to my original thread, which was
On 4 Jan 2010, at 19:23, richard lucassen wrote:
> Thnx to everyone. I think mailman and mlmmj are good suggestions. I'll
> examine all of these and I'll choose the one that fits best to this
> rather particular purpose.
Mailman is a python app, mlmmj is a native C app that works through a loca
Steve a écrit :
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100
>> Von: mouss
>> An: postfix users list
>> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
>> Roman Gelfand a écrit :
>>> I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
>>> grossd, dkim, send
nik600 a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM, nik600 wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> i've installed a postfix server with mysql support.
>>
>> i've also set-up a custom filter script shell that calls spamc and
>> some other custom utils, this script cannot handle multiple
>> recipients, so i've set
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:20:04 +0100
> Von: mouss
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Steve a écrit :
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100
> >> Von: mouss
> >> An: postfix us
Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. After adding
s25r rules and HELO response verification in main.cf, no spam has
siped through.
I think that mostly it was HELO response verification that did it.
BTW, is there a reason not block emails with incorrect HELO response?
Thanks
O
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:40:29 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. After adding
> s25r rules and HELO response verification in
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:40:29PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. After adding
> s25r rules and HELO response verification in main.cf, no spam has
> siped through.
>
> I think that mostly it was HELO response verification that did it.
> BTW,
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:45:21 -0600
> Von: Kenneth Marshall
> An: Roman Gelfand
> CC: Steve , postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:40:29PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> > Well, it looks like, perhaps, I
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:47:11 +0100
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:45:21 -0600
> > Von: Kenneth Marshall
> > An: Roman Gelfand
> >
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:40:29 -0500
>> Von: Roman Gelfand
>> An: Steve
>> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
>> Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. Afte
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:08:39 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Steve wrote:
> >
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 201
On Jan 4, 2010, at 16:08, Roman Gelfand wrote:
would have expected you to
say, a MTA which ignores basic basic configuration rules doesn't
deserve that it's mail should be accepted. In fact, this is the way I
feel about this.
Seconded.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010, Steve wrote:
> > > > I think that mostly it was HELO response verification that did it.
> > > > BTW, is there a reason not block emails with incorrect HELO response?
> > > >
> > > None really, unless you need to accept mail from misconfigured
> > > servers. (We do.)
> > >
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
