I am new to the list.
This is on OS-X Server 10.6.3 on an Xserve with postfix 2.5.5 that came
with the system.
I have a situation where using zen.spamhaus.org , spam gets through
despite zen saying that IP is bad.
here is a sample error message:
connect from cpe-67-252-139-22.buffalo.res.rr.co
* Len Conrad :
> May 20 10:37:35 s...@sl1.hctc.net postfix/master[29415]: dict_eval: const
Don't run master verbosely.
I had a similar problem once when I umounted the /var/spool/postfix on
a DRBD system. There were POstfix processes still lingering around (ps
auxwww|grep postfix) which I all k
JF Mezei:
> I am new to the list.
>
> This is on OS-X Server 10.6.3 on an Xserve with postfix 2.5.5 that came
> with the system.
>
>
> I have a situation where using zen.spamhaus.org , spam gets through
> despite zen saying that IP is bad.
>
> here is a sample error message:
>
> connect from c
On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:46:34 +0200, Julien Vehent
wrote:
> Like most of the time, I discover that I've been too hasty to answer !
>
> Postfix IS chrooted on Debian by default. At least, smtpd is. And by
> removing the chroot in master.conf, I can now see that DIGEST-MD5 is
> negociated with Slapd
Wietse Venema wrote:
>> connect from cpe-67-252-139-22.buffalo.res.rr.com [67.252.139.22]
>> May 19 01:09:15 velo postfix/smtpdP26473]: warning:
>> 22.139.252.67.zen.spamhaus.org: RBL lookup error: Host or domain name
>> not found. Name service error for name=22.139.252.67.zen.spamhaus.org
>> type
JF Mezei:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> >> connect from cpe-67-252-139-22.buffalo.res.rr.com [67.252.139.22]
> >> May 19 01:09:15 velo postfix/smtpdP26473]: warning:
> >> 22.139.252.67.zen.spamhaus.org: RBL lookup error: Host or domain name
> >> not f
Hi, I have a problem with some mails that are discarded when in body message
there is a web link with http prefix, i.e. with:
http://www.example.com/example
with this link the mail is discarded and in log file I have:
[r...@mail ~]# grep 707F026A302 /var/log/maillog
May 20 10:52:16 mail postfi
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:03:22 +0200
"Sasa" wrote:
> Hi, I have a problem with some mails that are discarded when in body
> message there is a web link with http prefix, i.e. with:
>
> http://www.example.com/example
>
> with this link the mail is discarded and in log file I have:
>
> [r...@mail
hi list, i have a postfix 2.5.1 installed from rpm package with vda and
mysql and dovecot but i want to know which version of postfix is the better
to work with virtual users, multi domains, roundcube, mysql and dovecot
because in the page of postfix they have 2.7 in stable version, thank a lot
On 21/05/2010 14:03, Sasa wrote:
Hi, I have a problem with some mails that are discarded when in body
message there is a web link with http prefix, i.e. with:
http://www.example.com/example
On my mail server I have:
postfix 2.5.6
amavisd-new
spamassassin
clamav
This is spamassassin rejecti
but is strange that when mail is blocked I haven't in log file "Blocked
SPAM", therefore how can I modify my spamassassin configuration for resolve
my problem ?
Thanks.
--
Salvatore.
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Goodge"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:16 PM
Subject: R
On 21/05/2010 14:44, Sasa wrote:
but is strange that when mail is blocked I haven't in log file "Blocked
SPAM",
It says "discarded, UBE", which means the same thing.
therefore how can I modify my spamassassin configuration for
resolve my problem ?
That depends on whether it is a problem. As
I was originally setting up for one hostname to which outgoing email would
be sent. Now it looks like we have some internal users that cannot reach
the firewall (because they are in a no-internet-access zone). It turns out,
for them to get to the mail server, they have to address it as a differen
On 5/21/2010 8:10 AM, gbot...@emailforall.no-ip.org wrote:
hi list, i have a postfix 2.5.1 installed from rpm package with vda and
mysql and dovecot but i want to know which version of postfix is the
better to work with virtual users, multi domains, roundcube, mysql and
dovecot because in the pag
Matt Hayes wrote (on Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:49:43PM -0400):
> On 5/19/2010 1:03 PM, Josh Cason wrote:
> > I don't know how to explain this. Have you guys every heard of a problem
> > were email is sent to another server and go stray for hours before being
> > delivered? The only network I had prob
On 5/21/2010 9:29 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
I was originally setting up for one hostname to which outgoing email
would be sent. Now it looks like we have some internal users that
cannot reach the firewall (because they are in a no-internet-access
zone). It turns out, for them to get to the mail se
Hi, all
I'm just playing with implement SRS(Sender Rewriting Scheme)-like
function into Postfix.
*SRS - http://www.openspf.org/SRS
A trivial patch, attached this message would do the following.
* rewrite sender when the message will forward to other site/domain.
* Nope when the VERP setting is
JF Mezei put forth on 5/21/2010 4:20 AM:
> connect from cpe-67-252-139-22.buffalo.res.rr.com [67.252.139.22]
> May 19 01:09:15 velo postfix/smtpdP26473]: warning:
> 22.139.252.67.zen.spamhaus.org: RBL lookup error: Host or domain name
> not found. Name service error for name=22.139.252.67.zen.spam
I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on" SSL/TLS
(e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes will do),
and the RFCs are coming up empty. I thought it was 587. But RFC4409
doesn't say if
On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on" SSL/TLS
> (e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
> connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes will
> do), and the RFCs are coming up empty.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 14:48, Matt Hayes wrote:
> On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> > I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on" SSL/TLS
> > (e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
> > connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrap
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:26:33 -0400
Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 14:48, Matt Hayes
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> > > I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on"
> > > SSL/TLS (e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS
>
On 05/20/2010 09:31 AM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-05-20 Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 05/19/2010 10:30 PM, Alex wrote:
Is it possible to strip the entire HTML content and pass only the
text? Perhaps the right way to say it would be to pass only the MIME
text and strip everything else?
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:29, John Peach wrote:
> 465 is for SMTP over SSL, which is deprecated.
>
What is deprecated? Using port 465? Or doing SMTP over SSL?
Unfortunately, I need to do the latter because of some network security and
access issues (and for like reason am doing IMAP over SSL
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:35:55 -0400
Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:29, John Peach
> wrote:
>
> > 465 is for SMTP over SSL, which is deprecated.
> >
>
> What is deprecated? Using port 465? Or doing SMTP over SSL?
SMTP over SSL
> Unfortunately, I need to do the latter because
Phil Howard:
> I'm doing optional STARTTLS (e.g. smtpd_tls_security_level=may and
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination)
> on port 25.
>
> What should I be doing on port 587?
There's an example submission (port 587) service in recent
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Your problem report had ZERO evidence that other Spamhaus lookups
> succeed. Given a useless problem report, we are just wasting each
> other's time.
Thank you for your time. I will conclude that the software is perfectly
able to handle DNS replies with multiple IP addresse
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> Mail that does not contain a text-only representation of the content may
> safely be dropped, since it violates the RFCs.
This is false. No RFC requires a text/plain message body.
--
Viktor.
P.S. Morgan Stanley is looki
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:40, John Peach wrote:
> Why not use "smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt" on port 587?
>
The remote site involved is tunneling these connections through something
like SSL, as far as I can tell. It works fine on port 993 for IMAP.
Why is SMTP over SSL depricated whil
On Fri, 21 May 2010, JF Mezei wrote:
Thank you for your time. I will conclude that the software is perfectly
able to handle DNS replies with multiple IP addresses and that the
problem is purely at my end. (problem which did not exist when I was on
a different SMTP server).
I apologize for wasti
Tomoyuki Murakami:
> Hi, all
>
> I'm just playing with implement SRS(Sender Rewriting Scheme)-like
> function into Postfix.
>*SRS - http://www.openspf.org/SRS
> A trivial patch, attached this message would do the following.
> * rewrite sender when the message will forward to other site/domain.
On 2010-05-21 4:04 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
> OK, I can do SMTP over TLS/SSL on port 465 (with a slight and unlikely
> risk of usage collision). So what is port 587 for?
? This question has been answered at least 3 or 4 times in this very thread.
port 465 is for SMTP+SSL
this is DEPRECATED and has
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> punit jain put forth on 5/19/2010 12:52 AM:
>
>> I am using Postfix as an MTA but I see nowadays lot of spam going out of my
>> system. I have used transport based throttling for a domain but I am looking
>> for options for per sender based r
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 16:15, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-05-21 4:04 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
>> OK, I can do SMTP over TLS/SSL on port 465 (with a slight and unlikely
>> risk of usage collision). So what is port 587 for?
>
> ? This question has been answered at least 3 or 4 times in this very
Hi
I have a server (server.domain) with policy service configure (see
postconf output). The problem comes when the policy server
(server_policy.domain:9997 ) goes down, I get this error:
May 21 16:43:16 server postfix/smtpd[23075]: connect from
localhost.domain[127.0.0.1]
May 21 16:43:16 server pos
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 04:43:15PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> > port 465 is for SMTP+SSL
> > this is DEPRECATED and has been for a long time
> >
> > port 587 is for SMTP+STARTTLS
> > this is the designated SMTP SUBMISSION port
> >
> > The submission port should always be used instead of port 465
On 5/21/2010 3:32 PM, Appliantologist wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
punit jain put forth on 5/19/2010 12:52 AM:
I am using Postfix as an MTA but I see nowadays lot of spam going out of my
system. I have used transport based throttling for a domain but I am looki
On 5/21/2010 3:48 PM, Israel Garcia wrote:
Hi
I have a server (server.domain) with policy service configure (see
postconf output). The problem comes when the policy server
(server_policy.domain:9997 ) goes down, I get this error:
May 21 16:43:16 server postfix/smtpd[23075]: connect from
localhost
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 5/21/2010 3:48 PM, Israel Garcia wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>> I have a server (server.domain) with policy service configure (see
>> postconf output). The problem comes when the policy server
>> (server_policy.domain:9997 ) goes down, I get this error:
On 5/21/2010 4:01 PM, Israel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/21/2010 3:48 PM, Israel Garcia wrote:
Hi
I have a server (server.domain) with policy service configure (see
postconf output). The problem comes when the policy server
(server_policy.domain:9997
> What about avoid the NOQUEUE error on the smtp server when policy
> service is down? I mean, queue all mail until the policy server is UP
> again. Is it possible?
That defeats the use of the policy server. The purpose of the policy server is
to help determine if it should be queued or rejected
> I've seen everything set up per the documents and all the online tests
> showing that i'm not an open relay. I have no need for external
> sendmail and I've used all the proper configs and all the suggestions
> on the list, and I still get some guy with watches for sale who can
> send mail anyway
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Gary Smith wrote:
>> What about avoid the NOQUEUE error on the smtp server when policy
>> service is down? I mean, queue all mail until the policy server is UP
>> again. Is it possible?
>
> That defeats the use of the policy server. The purpose of the policy serv
Phil Howard a écrit :
> I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with "always on" SSL/TLS
> (e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
> connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes will
> do), and the RFCs are coming up empty. I thought it was 58
On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:32:27 +0300
Appliantologist wrote:
> I figured it's be pretty easy, say have some file like used in the
> various popauth schemes. If the IP address of the connection in not in
> the list, NO relay. It wasn't. Strict 822RFC is set and it doesn't
> stop the guy from sendin
gbot...@emailforall.no-ip.org a écrit :
> hi everyone im confuse with that i have postifx 2.5.1 from rpm with vda
> and mysql and dovecot virtual domains and everything is working fine but
> my question is in dovecot i need to put the quota_rules for the
> postfix??? mean when i put quota_rule in d
JF Mezei a écrit :
> I am new to the list.
>
> This is on OS-X Server 10.6.3 on an Xserve with postfix 2.5.5 that came
> with the system.
>
>
> I have a situation where using zen.spamhaus.org , spam gets through
> despite zen saying that IP is bad.
>
> here is a sample error message:
>
> conne
On May 20, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Len Conrad wrote:
> -- Original Message --
> From: Wietse Venema
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:35:46 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> Len Conrad:
>>> setsid(0x805c71d,0x2,0x0,0xbfbfeb1c,0xbfbfeb24,0x281beda0) ERR#1 'Operation
>>> not permitte
Hi, Wieste,
Thanks for reply.
From: Wietse Venema
Subject: Re: SRS implementation
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:13:45 -0400 (EDT)
> First, this would accept mail for forwarder+anyuser=anydom...@my.dom,
> meaning that it would be an open relay. A more secure implementation
> would compute a hash of (
hello postfix network
are you there a official version of centos postfix most days can be redhat
this actual version is
[r...@r13151 ~]# rpm -qa | grep postfix
postfix-pflogsumm-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
This version is outdated and is no longer supported
how to keep the upstream of
> hello postfix network
>
> are you there a official version of centos postfix most days can be
> redhat
> this actual version is
> [r...@r13151 ~]# rpm -qa | grep postfix
> postfix-pflogsumm-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
> postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
> This version is outdated and is no longer supported
> how to k
On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:06:37 -0700, Gary Smith
wrote:
>> hello postfix network
>>
>> are you there a official version of centos postfix most days can be
>> redhat
>> this actual version is
>> [r...@r13151 ~]# rpm -qa | grep postfix
>> postfix-pflogsumm-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
>> postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
>
>
> do you have any information on a future release redhat postfix
> I'm going to compile my rpm
I have no more information than you. I just manage my own base packages and
update them when a new postfix release comes out.
I posted here before but here is a continuation (in a different issue)
of what's going on.
All aliases are in LDAP. An e-mail is looked up with virtual_alias_maps
and the username (based on the way webmin has it) and not the user's
e-mail. The username is in the format user-domain.com so of course
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 01:05:12AM -0400, Mike A. Leonetti wrote:
> I posted here before but here is a continuation (in a different issue)
> of what's going on.
>
> All aliases are in LDAP. An e-mail is looked up with virtual_alias_maps
> and the username (based on the way webmin has it) and not
55 matches
Mail list logo
