J. Bakshi wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I am trying to drop outgoing emails having particular email-id in its
> [TO] field. Say myn...@domain1.com and myna...@domain2.com, hence any
> mail destined for myn...@domain1.com or myna...@domain2.com will be
> dropped . To achieve this I have made a file
On 2010-01-18 David Koski wrote:
> My mail server has been getting a fair amount of spam hits that have
> been rejected but the sender address is spoofed with the recipient's
> address. This generates an NDR to the recipient with the spam. I
> would like to suppress NDRs of this kind but not legi
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 11:34 +0530, J. Bakshi wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I am trying to drop outgoing emails having particular email-id in its
> [TO] field. Say myn...@domain1.com and myna...@domain2.com, hence any
> mail destined for myn...@domain1.com or myna...@domain2.com will be
> dropped
Hi,
I'm stuck into a problem.
I'm using content filter, which parses email from my postfix server.
My postfix server sometimes sends a command which is less than 4 alphabets.
I don't know what to do for that command, as I don't know which command is
that...
Can anybody tell me, is there any com
Arora, Sumit:
> Hi,
>
> I'm stuck into a problem.
> I'm using content filter, which parses email from my postfix server.
> My postfix server sometimes sends a command which is less than 4 alphabets.
>
> I don't know what to do for that command, as I don't know which command is
> that...
> Can a
* Arora, Sumit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm stuck into a problem.
> I'm using content filter, which parses email from my postfix server.
> My postfix server sometimes sends a command which is less than 4 alphabets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
> I don't know what to do for that command, as I don't
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:34:13AM +0530, J. Bakshi wrote:
> I am trying to drop outgoing emails having particular email-id in
> its [TO] field. Say myn...@domain1.com and myna...@domain2.com,
> hence any mail destined for myn...@domain1.com or
> myna...@domain2.com will be dropped . To achieve th
Hi,
after upgrading a machine from etch to lenny i get the following warning
postfix/smtpd[23231]: warning: pcre map /etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check, line 0:
ignoring unrecognized request
main.cf:
check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check
file:
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.or
On 1/19/2010 9:15 AM, Harakiri wrote:
Hi,
after upgrading a machine from etch to lenny i get the following warning
postfix/smtpd[23231]: warning: pcre map /etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check, line 0:
ignoring unrecognized request
main.cf:
check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check
f
Harakiri:
> Hi,
>
> after upgrading a machine from etch to lenny i get the following warning
>
> postfix/smtpd[23231]: warning: pcre map /etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check, line
> 0: ignoring unrecognized request
>
> main.cf:
>
> check_client_access pcre:/etc/postfix/postfix_rbl_check
>
> file:
On 1/18/2010 11:47 PM, David Koski wrote:
My mail server has been getting a fair amount of spam hits that have been
rejected but the sender address is spoofed with the recipient's address.
This generates an NDR to the recipient with the spam. I would like to
suppress NDRs of this kind but not le
On 18-Jan-2010, at 14:20, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> /usr/bin/whtlst_gen.sh
> #! /bin/sh
>
> # [1] grab all sent to addresses from the current mail log
> sed -n -e '/postfix\/smtp\[.*status=sent/s/^.*to=<\([^>]*\).*$/\1/p'
> /var/log/mail.log | sort -u > /tmp/sender_addrs.tmp
>
> # merge the new addr
On 18-Jan-2010, at 17:15, Steve wrote:
> You don't seem to be very confident in your Anti-Spam solution if you skip
> certain senders. Does your Anti-Spam solution not have an mechanism to
> automatically skip checking mails form senders you communicate often?
Oh, I dunno. I have manually white
--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> That is not a valid PCRE file entry, and it has never been
> valid.
>
> Postfix promises compatibility only for behavior that is
> promised
> by documentation. Postfix behavior for invalid inputs is
> subject
> to change without prior warning.
ok
> > I'm using content filter, which parses email from my postfix server.
> > My postfix server sometimes sends a command which is less than 4
> > alphabets.
> > I don't know what to do for that command, as I don't know which command
> > is that... Can anybody tell me, is there any command of less
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 07:57:02AM -0800, Harakiri wrote:
> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > postfix/tlsmgr[23233]: warning: request to update
> > table btree:/var/spool/postfix/smtpd_scache in non-postfix
> > directory /var/spool/postfix
> >
> > See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix
On 1/19/2010 9:57 AM, Harakiri wrote:
See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation is
created with
a great deal of effort. Don't let it go to waste.
I dont agree on this one (and this list is maybe not the right place for this)
- i expect the debian package maintainer to take care of any
--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Noel Jones wrote:
> From: Noel Jones
> Subject: Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 11:42 AM
> On 1/19/2010 9:57 AM, Harakiri
> wrote:
> >> See the RELEASE_NOTES file. Postfix documentation
On 1/19/2010 10:51 AM, Harakiri wrote:
--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Noel Jones wrote:
From: Noel Jones
Subject: Re: Changes in PCRE handling postfix etch vs lenny?
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 11:42 AM
On 1/19/2010 9:57 AM, Harakiri
wrote:
See the RELEASE_NOTES fil
On January 17, 2010 3:16:54 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Have you been in prison or incapacitated for the last few years Frank?
You seem to be out of touch with many established standards/norms.
Indeed I have. One of those. :)
Also I question "established" norms because times change and oft
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.
I am a "proper" host with a "proper" ISP. Yet I do not have a PTR record
for this particu
Michael Reck a écrit :
> Zitat von Patrick Ben Koetter :
>
>> * 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
>>> a
Frank Bonnet a écrit :
> Hello
>
> I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
>
> actually I use :
> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> \check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
>
> on the mailhub which is not "Internet visible" but I would like to
> reject with t
Well, there's one positive side to this thread Noel. Your reply to "undisclosed
recipients" instead of the list address broke my postfix-users sort filter. I
just spent 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I tried "received" and
"return-path" and all kinds of header checks in the T-Bird message
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:15:59 -0600
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> Well, there's one positive side to this thread Noel. Your reply to
> "undisclosed
> recipients" instead of the list address broke my postfix-users sort filter. I
> just spent 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I tried "received" an
/dev/rob0 put forth on 1/19/2010 10:41 AM:
>> I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a
>> /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file.
>
> This is worth complaining about, IMO. If a user should make the
> conscious decision to not install the documentation with a given
> package, that's
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:48:08PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> I am a "proper" host with a "proper" ISP. Yet I do not have a PTR record
> for this particular IP. That doesn't make my mail server any LESS valid.
>
This non-Postfix "discussion" has soaked up enough postfix-users list
cycles. Ple
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:14 -0700
> Von: LuKreme
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
> On 18-Jan-2010, at 17:15, Steve wrote:
> > You don't seem to be very confident in your Anti-Spam solution if you
> skip cert
Steve put forth on 1/19/2010 7:10 PM:
> I have another opinion on that. The Anti-Spam solution I use has normally
> 0.01 seconds (or less but could be more as well) per message when classifying
> a mail for Ham/Spam. Every processing of a message allows me to increase the
> accuracy of the solu
> Many people don't use content filters in their anti-spam arsenals. For
> these
> folks (including myself) whitelisting is a valuable tool, and if done
> correctly
> won't introduce any additional exposure to spam via spoofed sender
> addresses.
>
I know that.
> If you're gasping and wondering
30 matches
Mail list logo
