On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, LuKreme wrote:
> On 13-Feb-2010, at 15:15, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > You missed a whole paragraph in my response:
>
> No, I just didn't respond to it as there didn't seem to be any need.
Postfix does not log every single status code it sends to SMTP clients;
that was the
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Alex wrote:
> I have a Linux server running an older version of postfix and webmail
> for users to send mail. Since localhost is trusted in $mynetworks, a
> connection from there can send mail to any recipient. Since
> squirrelmail connects directly to localhost, any mail that
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:36:22AM -0500, Alex wrote:
> I have a Linux server running an older version of postfix and
> webmail for users to send mail. Since localhost is trusted in
> $mynetworks, a connection from there can send mail to any
> recipient. Since squirrelmail connects directly to loca
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.7.0.html]
Postfix stable release 2.7.0 is available. For the past several
releases, the focus has moved towards improving the code and
documentation, and updating the system for changing en
Hi,
I guess I'm just temporarily blind, but I can't find a solution.
I have a smtpd_recipient_restriction like this:
..., check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients, permit
with /etc/postfix/recipients:
us...@example.com REJECT don't use this!
us...@example.net DEFER s
* Stefan Palme :
> Hi,
>
> I guess I'm just temporarily blind, but I can't find a solution.
> I have a smtpd_recipient_restriction like this:
>
> ..., check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients, permit
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
check_recipient_access pcre:/et
> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
>
> // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
Thanks for the hint. But the content of "recipients_default" must
also be stored in LDAP (because some admin with LDAP access privilege
Stefan Palme:
> Hi,
>
> I guess I'm just temporarily blind, but I can't find a solution.
> I have a smtpd_recipient_restriction like this:
>
> ..., check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients, permit
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
...
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
Hi,
Is the effect of
content_filter = smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
the same as
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transports
/etc/postfix/transports:
*smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
?
Thanks and regards
-stefan-
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Stefan Palme wrote:
>
> > check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> > check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
> >
> > // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
>
> Thanks for the hint. But the content of "recipients_default
Geert Hendrickx:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Stefan Palme wrote:
> >
> > > check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> > > check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
> > >
> > > // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
> >
> > Thanks for the hint. But t
Stefan Palme:
> Hi,
>
> Is the effect of
>
> content_filter = smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
>
> the same as
>
> transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transports
>
> /etc/postfix/transports:
> *smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10025
content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms
in Pos
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 14:21 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms
> in Postfix including transport_maps, relayhost, address classes, etc.
Ok, but if I have a very simple setup without any per-whatever
transport_maps, relayhost, etc. it
Stefan Palme:
> On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 14:21 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > content_filter and FILTER have precedence over all routing mechanisms
> > in Postfix including transport_maps, relayhost, address classes, etc.
>
> Ok, but if I have a very simple setup without any per-whatever
> transport
Stefan Palme a écrit :
>> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
>> check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
>>
>> // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
>
> Thanks for the hint. But the content of "recipients_default" must
> also be stored in LDAP (because some a
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 23:44 +0100, mouss wrote:
> Stefan Palme a écrit :
> >> check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/recipients
> >> check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipients_default
> >>
> >> // REJECT rejected for testing purposes
> >
> > Thanks for the hint. But the content of "rec
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/14/2010 12:52 PM:
> regexp:/etc/postfix/recipients.pcre
^^
Wietse is this a typo or am I about to learn something new about regexp/pcre
interchangeability/compatibility in Postfix? I'm assuming in the example above
that the
On Tuesday 19 January 2010, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> 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.
Our Postfix server (RHEL 4, stock-standard RPM) is playing up at the moment.
The mail server is our outgoing mail server (on the DMZ), and I noticed that
since last weekend we're having this issue:
A lot of the mails generated by our web applications (and manually, may I
add) were being queued up
On 02/14/2010 10:17 PM, Jafaruddin Lie wrote:
>
> We do have a CISCO ASA 5520 that the outgoing mailserver sits behind,
> and I have done the no fixup protocol on the box to no avail.
> I have also enabled ICMP from that box to our internal mail server,
> and ping works so I figure the ICMP NO-FRAG
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
Never post links to information that requires a credit card in order to view it.
I'm sure this breaks one if not many netiquette rules. ;
On 02/15/2010 01:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
>
>
>> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
>>
> Never post links to information that requires a credit card in order to vie
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:33 AM:
> On 02/15/2010 01:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
>>>
>> Never post links to inform
23 matches
Mail list logo
