Christoph Anton Mitterer put forth on 1/11/2010 5:31 PM:
> Using the "resolvconf" package, should solve your problems, the Debian
> postfix package ships rules for resolvconf in order to automatically
> update the chroot resolv.conf.
resolvconf has a long list of conflicts including ifupdown and
Hi all!
This is my first post to the list and i hope I can get some help.
I'm using postfix as MTA with dovecot IMAP on Ubuntu Karmic and I'm
trying to get server-side mail filtering with sieve. Everything seems
like it's working but it's not. I telnet localhost sive and list rules
and it seems l
Hi all!
This is my first post to the list and i hope I can get some help.
I'm using postfix as MTA with dovecot IMAP on Ubuntu Karmic and I'm
trying to get server-side mail filtering with sieve. Everything seems
like it's working but it's not. I telnet localhost sive and list rules
and it seems l
Quoting Per Laine :
Hi all!
This is my first post to the list and i hope I can get some help.
I'm using postfix as MTA with dovecot IMAP on Ubuntu Karmic and I'm
trying to get server-side mail filtering with sieve. Everything seems
like it's working but it's not. I telnet localhost sive and li
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 04:02 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> resolvconf has a long list of conflicts including ifupdown and bind8/9.
Uhm has it?
> Would using resolvconf
> break bind?
Unlikely,.. at least I'm using it together with bind9
> Aptitude seems to suggest this.
Well the resolvconf packag
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/11/2010 5:03 PM:
> Does anyone have an auto-whitelisting policy daemon? I want to have a
> test early in sender checks that would bypass most of my other spam
> prevention if a sender is in the whitelist - and have that whitelist
> automatically updated by internal
On 12.01.2010 13:21, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/11/2010 5:03 PM:
>> Does anyone have an auto-whitelisting policy daemon? I want to have a
>> test early in sender checks that would bypass most of my other spam
>> prevention if a sender is in the whitelist - and have that
Eugueny Kontsevoy:
> I had some issues with free disk space so I had to start the server, expand
> the partition and restart it again.
> I did the following:
>
> > postsuper -r ALL
>
> It reported that it re-queued a bunch of messages and I can see that they're
> sitting in maildrop queue.
> post
On 1/12/2010 5:06 AM, Per Laine wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> This is my first post to the list and i hope I can get some help.
>
> I'm using postfix as MTA with dovecot IMAP on Ubuntu Karmic and I'm
> trying to get server-side mail filtering with sieve. Everything seems
> like it's working but it's not. I
On 1/12/2010 5:11 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> Quoting Per Laine :
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> This is my first post to the list and i hope I can get some help.
>>
>> I'm using postfix as MTA with dovecot IMAP on Ubuntu Karmic and I'm
>> trying to get server-side mail filtering with sieve. Everything seems
>
Ok, thanks for the reply. When I set "virtual_transport = dovecot" and add
dovecot unix - n n - - pipe
flags=DRhu user=vmail:vmail argv=/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -f
${sender} -d ${recipient}
to master.cf I get Can't connect to auth server at
/var/run/dovecot//aut
>>>On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 06:15:21PM -0300, Damian Rivas wrote:
> >> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8, 200.55.14.248/29, 190.210.52.88/29
>
> >These are the hosts allowed to relay. Don't mung the IP addresses.
snip
>> All mailing incomes seem to come from ns1.cht.com.ar, which is a
>> gateway for the i
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:50:19AM -0300, Damian Rivas wrote:
> >Another possibility, as you mentioned that this is the gateway for
> >Postfix, is that it has a misconfigured firewall that is doing
> >both source and destination NAT of port 25 to your Postfix. I just
> >tested this, and was unab
On 01/12/2010 09:50 AM, Damian Rivas wrote:
Yeah, I've figured out that the problem was a Firewall vulnerability issue,
port 25 was open to anyone. I've fixed that and problem solved!
Thanks to you all for your help and my apologies because it was not a Postfix
issue at all,
Don't feel bad.
After searching the mailing list (and the web in general) what I can
gather about multiple PTR records is that postfix is adamant that
hosts should not have multiple PTR records.
Who cares? It's like saying DNS names should not have underscores or
spaces.
Yes we don't like it, but it's easy for
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> Yes we don't like it, but it's easy for postfix to accept and deal with it.
You write the code, deploy it on your systems, and suffer the consequences.
> I'll post my actual problem in another thread, to keep this one focused
> on t
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> After searching the mailing list (and the web in general) what I
> can gather about multiple PTR records is that postfix is adamant
> that hosts should not have multiple PTR records.
>
> Who cares? It's like saying DNS names should
On January 12, 2010 11:07:25 AM -0600 "/dev/rob0" wrote:
It's hard to focus on what you said when we don't know what you
said. :)
I thought it was pretty clear. :)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
After searching the mailing list (and the web in general) what I
Quoting Frank Cusack :
Apparently it only "honors" the first PTR record that getnameinfo()
returns to it. Additionally this appears to be a conscious decision
and in part designed to impose postfix's sense of order on the world.
-frank
In this case at least, I think, "postfix's sense of o
On January 12, 2010 12:24:20 PM -0500 Frank Cusack
wrote:
Apparently it only "honors" the first PTR record that getnameinfo()
returns to it. Additionally this appears to be a conscious decision
and in part designed to impose postfix's sense of order on the world.
Well, I see part of the probl
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
> I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
> to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downside.
What's the downside Frank?
--
Stan
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:04:56PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On January 12, 2010 12:24:20 PM -0500 Frank Cusack
> wrote:
>> Apparently it only "honors" the first PTR record that getnameinfo()
>> returns to it. Additionally this appears to be a conscious decision
>> and in part designed to im
On January 12, 2010 12:09:28 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downside.
What's the downside Frank?
Good question.
I can't ac
On January 12, 2010 1:10:51 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
If you have a specific use case in which you need guidance to configure
Postfix, please start a new thread, without the polemics.
That is why I stated originally, for my specific problem case I will be
writing in another thread. I am
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:12 PM:
> On January 12, 2010 12:09:28 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
>> Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
>>
>>> I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
>>> to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downsid
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:12:52PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> I can't accept mail from hosts with multiple PTR records without manually
> whitelisting them. Additionally, I can't even tell that I'm experiencing
> a failure until it is reported to me "manually" and out of band.
Don't use "rejec
Are challenge response systems still heavily frowned on?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartia...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:39:16AM -0800, Aaron Clausen wrote:
> Are challenge response systems still heavily frowned on?
Yes. This is how I explain spam filtering of C/R requests to
my users:
The attached message was reported by you as a quarantine error.
Sadly, challenge/response anti
On 1/12/2010 12:39 PM, Aaron Clausen wrote:
Are challenge response systems still heavily frowned on?
Yes.
Noel Jones put forth on 1/12/2010 12:50 PM:
> On 1/12/2010 12:39 PM, Aaron Clausen wrote:
>> Are challenge response systems still heavily frowned on?
>>
>
> Yes.
Yes.
--
Stan
Bucl, Casper a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I’m trying to use Postfix as an MTA. I don’t want to deliver any mail
> locally, just relay everything to an external mail server. I would also
> like everything that runs though this MTA to be sent as a particular
> user, however I don’t want messages intended for
My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large
PTR RRset -- 44 entries and large enough to require TCP.
host/dig/nslookup actually dumps core on my solaris box (looks like
the bug was fixed in BIND just a few months ago). I don't know for
sure that it is the PTR records that are
On January 12, 2010 12:28:10 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:12 PM:
On January 12, 2010 12:09:28 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
to acceptin
On January 12, 2010 1:33:46 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:12:52PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
I can't accept mail from hosts with multiple PTR records without manually
whitelisting them. Additionally, I can't even tell that I'm experiencing
a failure until it is re
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:02:37PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large
Not according to what we see below. "Lost connection" does not mean
you rejected them.
> PTR RRset -- 44 entries and large enough to require TCP.
> host/dig/nslookup a
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 2:29 PM:
> Not to be rude, but I'm not sure why you asked me the question in the
> first place. It was in fact a great question. Your response however
> was merely to dismiss my problem. So it seems like your question was
> just rhetoric designed to sink this
On January 12, 2010 2:49:32 PM -0600 "/dev/rob0" wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:02:37PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large
Not according to what we see below. "Lost connection" does not mean
you rejected them.
Quite. That should h
On 1/12/2010 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large
PTR RRset -- 44 entries and large enough to require TCP.
host/dig/nslookup actually dumps core on my solaris box (looks like
the bug was fixed in BIND just a few months ago). I don't know fo
On 1/12/2010 3:05 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 12, 2010 2:49:32 PM -0600 "/dev/rob0" wrote:
reject_unauth_pipelining won't work here, only in
smtpd_data_restrictions
reject_unauth_pipelining
Reject the request when the client sends SMTP commands ahead of time
where it is not allowed,
On January 12, 2010 2:52:58 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 2:29 PM:
Is it your opinion that the disadvantages I've described aren't valid?
When it comes to multiple PTRs on a single email emitting IP, yes, it is
my opinion that that the disadvantages you des
On January 12, 2010 3:10:12 PM -0600 Noel Jones
wrote:
On 1/12/2010 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large
PTR RRset -- 44 entries and large enough to require TCP.
host/dig/nslookup actually dumps core on my solaris box (looks like
the bug
On 1/12/2010 3:19 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 12, 2010 2:52:58 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 2:29 PM:
Is it your opinion that the disadvantages I've described aren't valid?
When it comes to multiple PTRs on a single email emitting IP, yes, it is
my
On 1/12/2010 3:33 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 12, 2010 3:10:12 PM -0600 Noel Jones
wrote:
Postfix uses system libraries for DNS lookups. You can test your system
using the same calls with the tools in the auxiliary/name-addr-test
directory in the postfix source.
These aren't built by def
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:16:53PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/12/2010 3:05 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> >On January 12, 2010 2:49:32 PM -0600 "/dev/rob0"
> >wrote:
> >>reject_unauth_pipelining won't work here, only in
> >>smtpd_data_restrictions
> >
> >reject_unauth_pipelining
[snip]
> With pos
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
>> Don't use "reject_unknown_client_hostname" indiscriminantly. Do so only
>> for CIDR blocks in which you find a small number of legitimate MTAs in a
>> larger pool of spam sending hosts without valid PTR records.
>
> In my case, I don
Dear All,
I want to ask a simple question regarding smtp authentication.
(Assuming that the user is not in my trusted networks)
If smtp authentication is on & the client connects through a EHLO
session, then the authentication goes fine and the user is
authenticated, but if he connects through a si
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:21:09AM +0530, Atevewr wrote:
> [..]
> If smtp authentication is on & the client connects through a EHLO
> session, then the authentication goes fine and the user is
> authenticated, but if he connects through a simple HELO session, then
> he is able to send a mail withou
On January 12, 2010 5:59:58 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
You latched onto a red-herring, it is far wiser to report accurate
symptoms than to speculate about theoretical causes of unreported
behaviour.
Sure, and that's the reason I started 2 threads.
I thought my first one was totally legit
Hello:
I maintain for a large client a Postfix/MySQL installation that
archives certain messages required to be held for compliance with
lawsuits and employment litigation. Postfix accepts mail from the
corporate mail server and delivers the message via a pipe alias to an
application that is th
49 matches
Mail list logo
