* William Jordan :
> Hi Folks,
> I came across an add-on for Trac that allows tickets to be updated using
> mail.
>
> Email2trac is what it's called and the Postfix install is here:
> https://subtrac.sara.nl/oss/email2trac/wiki/Email2tracMta
>
> It has instructions on how to integrate with Post
toneeeda...@googlemail.com a écrit :
> Hi,
>
Please do not top post. put your replies after the text you reply to.
>[snip]
>
>
> so i am running a virtual setup using mysql for maps. when i try to send
> an email to root it gets sent to r...@mail.domain.tld,
since doesn't have a domain part,
Taylor, Marc a écrit :
> Good morning,
>
> I am new to this list and I am not even sure if this is the place to
> start, but here goes.
>
> I have an Ubuntu 8.0.4 LTS server with postfix 2.5.1-2ubuntu1.2,
> mailman2.1.9-9ubuntu1 and procmail3.22-16ubuntu3. I have followed the
> instructions in t
Daniel L. Miller a écrit :
> I would like to have a policy server checked in
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions - but only if a previous permit_* check is
> true. Can I do this without coding the check within the policy server?
>
> Right now I have my standard smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
> smtpd_re
Patrick Ben Koetter a écrit :
> * William Jordan :
>> Hi Folks,
>> I came across an add-on for Trac that allows tickets to be updated using
>> mail.
>>
>> Email2trac is what it's called and the Postfix install is here:
>> https://subtrac.sara.nl/oss/email2trac/wiki/Email2tracMta
>>
>> It has inst
LuKreme a écrit :
> On 16-Jan-2010, at 12:24, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> To address that issue, I would like to be able to use another character
>>> ("_" or ".") that is commonly accepted as part of email addresses, instead.
>> Address transformation mappings are always queried at recipient
>> valida
mouss wrote:
Daniel L. Miller a écrit :
I would like to have a policy server checked in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions - but only if a previous permit_* check is
true. Can I do this without coding the check within the policy server?
Right now I have my standard smtpd_recipient_restrictions:
s
Hi,
On Sun, 17.01.2010 at 09:00:13 -0800, Daniel L. Miller
wrote:
> re-invent them or add processing time. Using port 587 is a good
> thought to pre-validate local senders - but I want to support
> verified remote senders as well - so I need a more universal
> solution.
we are doing this - ou
Hi List,
I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--with-userdir=) for various functions
which is not what i want. dspam also needs per user activation.
Anything except Mailstorage is placed in DB and i don`t want to change this.
Does anybo
On January 16, 2010 9:39:26 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
Frank Cusack:
until a name lookup has been done. But if that name lookup takes a
"very long" time, along with the connect postfix should log how long
ago the actual connect was.
The SMTP server can find out long the name/address looku
On January 12, 2010 1:33:46 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
Don't use "reject_unknown_client_hostname" indiscriminantly.
Ironically, enough time has passed that I now received a bounce from
Stan, due to my smtp host not having a PTR record. (It was a 450 and
finally my smtp server gave up.)
* Michael Reck :
> Hi List,
>
> I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
> DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--with-userdir=) for various
> functions which is not what i want. dspam also needs per user
> activation.
> Anything except Mailstorage is placed in DB and i don`t want
- Original Message
> From: Frank Cusack
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 8:26:15 PM
> Subject: Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse
> DNS.
>
> On January 12, 2010 1:33:46 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
> wrote:
> > Don't use "r
On January 17, 2010 12:37:46 PM -0800 "Daniel V. Reinhardt"
wrote:
A proper ISP and Host would have the proper PTR Records set up thus
validating the said sender as being part of a reputable ISP or Host.
Most of the spammers I have come across have improper DNS Records set up
meaning no name loo
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/17/2010 2:47 PM:
> On January 17, 2010 12:37:46 PM -0800 "Daniel V. Reinhardt"
> wrote:
>> A proper ISP and Host would have the proper PTR Records set up thus
>> validating the said sender as being part of a reputable ISP or Host.
>> Most of the spammers I have come acr
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Rejecting mail due to lack of a PTR is an anti bot spam tactic. It is as
prevalent today as it was 5 years ago, but probably less effective. Many ISPs
went PTR crazy, assigning them to all their dynamic consumer IP ranges. DULs
and generic PTR regexes are now more effecti
- Original Message
> From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
> To: Stan Hoeppner
> Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 9:36:59 PM
> Subject: Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse
> DNS.
>
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> > Rejecting mail d
Michael Reck wrote:
> I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
> DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--with-userdir=) for various functions
> which is not what i want. dspam also needs per user activation.
Your assumptions about Dspam are wrong. Using --with-userdir is
optional,
Daniel V. Reinhardt wrote:
JM,
There are various online tutorials that describe how to setup a proper name
server, and how to administer one. If they are unable to teach themselves,
then they should get rejected till they become better educated in the practices
of Information Technology and
postfix-2.7-20100117 changes the meaning of content filters of the
form "transport:" (note: no next-hop destination) so that this
form can be used to implement sender reputation schemes. Typically,
mail is split into classes, and all mail in class X is sent out
from an SMTP client IP ad
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:38:12PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> According to discussions on the Postfix list there is a legitimate
> need for such functionality. Until now this requires one Postfix
> instance per source IP address.
I am not entirely convinced the need is "legitimate", as this p
Victor Duchovni put forth on 1/17/2010 5:43 PM:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:38:12PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> According to discussions on the Postfix list there is a legitimate
>> need for such functionality. Until now this requires one Postfix
>> instance per source IP address.
>
> I am
On Jan 17, 2010, at 13:26, Frank Cusack wrote:
What is the reason for rejecting mail based on PTR records *at all*?
Erm.… some people seem to think PTR records are required.
On Jan 17, 2010, at 13:37, "Daniel V. Reinhardt"
wrote:
So rejecting email email by PTR Records is a spam prevention thing.
Can you back this up at all? It's certainly not true in my experience
and hasn't been true in a long time.
LuKreme put forth on 1/17/2010 5:55 PM:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 13:37, "Daniel V. Reinhardt"
> wrote:
>> So rejecting email email by PTR Records is a spam prevention thing.
>
> Can you back this up at all? It's certainly not true in my experience
> and hasn't been true in a long time.
Then I'd sur
* Wietse Venema :
> This is implemented by specifying FILTER actions with empty next-hop
> destinations in access maps or header/body_checks, and by configuring
> in master.cf one Postfix SMTP client for each SMTP source IP address,
> where each client has its own "-o myhostname" and "-o smtp_bind_
Other than scanning the logfiles, is there a way a service can receive
notification of a successful delivery to a remote site? In other words,
a trusted client submits mail for a remote site, Postfix connects and
receives acknowledgement from the remote site, and then notifies a local
process
I realize the developers and senior ops may be a bit irritated by some
of my recent queries. I plead ignorance - and a desire to improve.
I currently utilize ASSP as my primary filter. In the past, I have
heard that there is nothing ASSP does that cannot be done utilizing
alternative tools -
On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
29 matches
Mail list logo
