good.
I'm all ears, hit me with suggestions, corrections, or by pointing out a
different way I should be saying things
Kind regards
Ioannis
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5152 (20100528) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Hi - understood. Now, as the messages are received from other hosts, I can't
change the MAIL FROM part of the conversation. Also, as they are sent from
.net (using system.net.mail) the sender application can't change the
envelope sender without changing the From: line too (it's a limitation of
that
Am 28.05.2010 01:59, schrieb Jan-Kaspar Münnich:
> On 28.05.2010, at 24:12, mouss wrote:
>
>> check your spampd: as there any cases where it would pass mail without
>> checking it Example: wrong whitelisting mechanism. a common error in
>> spamassassin is to use whitelist_from (which is easily abu
On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:43:18 -0400, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 09:18:44PM +0200, Julien Vehent wrote:
>
>> === case 2: authentification succeeds
===
>>
>> Same authz-regex in slapd, same smtpclient command, I just removed the
>> smtpd_sasl_lo
Razvan Cosma:
> Hi - understood. Now, as the messages are received from other hosts, I can't
> change the MAIL FROM part of the conversation. Also, as they are sent from
> .net (using system.net.mail) the sender application can't change the
> envelope sender without changing the From: line too (it'
* Noel Jones [28/05/2010 09:21] :
>
> Yes, man 5 access, look for the "email address extension" section.
Brillant. Thanks, Noel.
Emmanuel
Ioannis Tsouvalas put forth on 5/28/2010 4:09 AM:
> My guess so far is to go and lower the link speed between the Shorewall,
> Postfix, and maybe even SBS2008, and that's because similar problems having
> been encountered where the MTU is bigger than 1500. Now, the only reason I
> haven't done it
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Andy Dills:
> >
> > I've been investigating postscreen, as we've been address probed/bombed
> > for years, as we have a few domains that are very old (well, early 90s)
> > that had a lot of users back in the dialup days. Our approach was to just
> >
solution.
Looking forward to further insight,
-
Ioannis
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5152 (20100528) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:41:46 +0300
"Ioannis Tsouvalas" wrote:
> reply
>
> Stan Hoeppner put forth on 5/28/201 5:42 AM:
>
> >The vmxnet 'NIC' is a virtual device, strictly a software driver.
> >The vmxnet driver communicates with the ESX kernel at the speed of
> >system memory, which on modern s
>Are there any firewalls between the Postfix and Exchange Server ?
>
>Mihira
Yes there is, shorewall as implemented on the link provided
http://flurdy.com/docs/postfix/
--
Ioannis
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5152
ww.shorewall.net/three-interface.htm
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5152 (20100528) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
I am testing a new server running Postfix 2.7.0 on Ubuntu 10.4. I am
using postmulti. The instance for receiving mail is setup like below.
Everything seems to be working fine.
But I feel confused why messages for non existing accounts gets
rejected with messages from policyd-weight and not with use
Zitat von LuKreme :
On 27-May-2010, at 07:34, Andy Dills wrote:
I've been investigating postscreen, as we've been address probed/bombed
for years, as we have a few domains that are very old (well, early 90s)
that had a lot of users back in the dialup days. Our approach was to just
throw hardwa
On 5/28/2010 7:49 AM, Jesper Fruergaard Andersen wrote:
> I am testing a new server running Postfix 2.7.0 on Ubuntu 10.4. I am
> using postmulti. The instance for receiving mail is setup like below.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel confused why messages for non existing accounts
Ioannis Tsouvalas put forth on 5/28/2010 6:41 AM:
> Stan thanks for the reply, as well as the insight regarding the difference
> between soft and hard nic devices. The only reason I'm pointing out the link
> pulse as well as the MTU, is that my search so far points me towards that
> direction. Now
Hi,
I have deployed postfix as an incoming mail receiving server.
On this I have a custom mail filter (based on jilter api):
My 'main.cf' file for milter settings is as follows:
#Milter support for smtpd mail
smtpd_milters =
inet:localhost:10026, # dkim milter
inet:localhost:10027, # sid mi
Ioannis Tsouvalas:
> 451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing
This is not a Postfix error mesage. It is an error in a non-Postfix MTA.
Please do not shoot the messenger.
> 451 Temporary local problem - please try later
This is not a Postfix error message. It is an error in a non
Sharma, Ashish:
> 1. Is?it expected and in accord with milter protocol to reuse the same
> connection i.e. should postfix communicate with milter over same single
> connection?
>
The SMTP protocol specifies that ONE SESSION can have MULTIPLE
MAIL FROM/RCPT/DATA transactions.
One MILTER connect
_mailbox_base = /var/spool/mail/virtual
virtual_mailbox_domains = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_domains.cf
virtual_mailbox_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_mailbox.cf
virtual_uid_maps = mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql_uid.cf
standing by,
Ioannis
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus si
aybe a
wrong one) I feel like you would have much more insight on the issue than
anyone else (you as in postfix user, admin, guru, lover, hard coder etc)
--
Ioannis
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5152 (20100528) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Hello;
I have an outsourced IM archival system, data from IM sessions are sent to this
system for archive via email. We select an IM message for un-archival, which is
then emailed to us. The problem I am having is that even prior to arrival at
the IM archiving vendor, my IM message has alread
Ioannis Tsouvalas:
> >
> >Ioannis Tsouvalas:
> >> 451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing
> >> 451 Temporary local problem - please try later
These you can do nothing about, except perhaps retry when the remote
system is under less stress.
> >> 421 4.4.1 Connection timed out (in
wiskbr...@hotmail.com:
>
>
> Hello;
>
> I have an outsourced IM archival system, data from IM sessions
> are sent to this system for archive via email. We select an IM
> message for un-archival, which is then emailed to us. The problem
> I am having is that even prior to arrival at the IM archiv
Hi,
I ran a Nessus scan last night and got a High Severity alert, which is
frustratingly vague. At least most reports point me to other vulnerability
sites to find a resolution.
I'm wondering if this an issue with my version of Postfix, configuration, or a
red herring.
Any input would be app
ill keep looking on
different ways to go around those issues, forward is the only option.
Still if someone is willing to go down that debugging path with me, or has
any other suggestions, I'm all ears, now more than ever.
With respect,
Ioannis
-
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5153 (20100528) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Hi folks.
I'm using postfix-2.3.3 in a linux box with about 90 mail accounts. Everything
is ok.
But, now, I need to establish 2 user levels and the following requirements on
levels:
1. All users in Level 1 can receive emails from only one top level external
email domain
(for ex
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 17:36, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> This might seem odd to some for me to say, but I really don't understand
> why you're trying so vainly to be such a stickler for the so-called
> "standards" in this case.
>
> IANA's "port numbers" are more a Best Common Practice than a literal
On 5/28/2010 1:01 PM, Davy Leon wrote:
Hi folks.
I'm using postfix-2.3.3 in a linux box with about 90 mail accounts.
Everything is ok.
But, now, I need to establish 2 user levels and the following
requirements on levels:
1. All users in Level 1 can receive emails from only one top level
I'm using Postfix 2.5.1 on Ubuntu Server x64 8.04 LTS. I am attempting
to use Postfix to relay non-local mail from my home network to ATT
U-verse's SMTP server at smtp.att.yahoo.com:465.
As recommended at the Postfix website (and elsewhere), I set up an
stunnel client connection from my server (on
__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5154 (20100528) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Andy Dills wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Wietse Venema wrote:
Andy Dills:
I've been investigating postscreen, as we've been address probed/bombed
for years, as we have a few domains that are very old (well, early 90s)
that had a lot of users back in the dialup days. Our approach was to just
th
Roderick A. Anderson:
> >>> Also, would postscreen_cache_map work with a mysql backend?
> >> postscreen needs very low latency (I put in explicit tests for
> >> this). Also, postscreen requires read, write, iterate support
> >> which is implemented only for file-based databases.
> >>
> >> If table
I would like to know if it is advisable to keep a final PERMIT at the
end of the smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
Below is the configuration used at my POSTFIX SMTP Server.
Thanks for any suggestion.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_au
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing with this. I think there should be an SMTPS.
Rhetorical question: How would a sending domain know that a particular
receiving domain supports SMTPS?
Clearly SMTPS would not be an alternative to SMTP for MX hosts,
Jack Browning:
> I'm curious as to why the generic map isn't working for mail sent to
> the relayhost.
Generic mapping is implemented in the Postfix SMTP client, so you
need to configure the Postfix SMTP client appropriately. Setting
the generic mapping on other Postfix programs has no effect.
On 5/28/2010 2:23 PM, Klaus Engelmann wrote:
I would like to know if it is advisable to keep a final PERMIT at the
end of the smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
A permit is implied at the end of each restriction class.
So adding or removing an explicit permit from the end has no noticeable
effect.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:24, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> I'm not disagreeing with this. I think there should be an SMTPS.
>
> Rhetorical question: How would a sending domain know that a particular
> receiving domain supports SMTPS?
Am 28.05.2010 14:13, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> Zitat von LuKreme :
>
>> On 27-May-2010, at 07:34, Andy Dills wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been investigating postscreen, as we've been address probed/bombed
>>> for years, as we have a few domains that are very old (well, early 90s)
>>> that had a lot of
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:24, Victor Duchovni
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not disagreeing with this. ?I think there should be an SMTPS.
> >
> > Rhetorical question: How would
Thanks Brian.
--
Klaus Engelmann
CCNA CCDA - CSCO10971632
LPIC-1 - LPI000138061
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
wrote:
> On 5/28/2010 2:23 PM, Klaus Engelmann wrote:
>>
>> I would like to know if it is advisable to keep a final PERMIT at the
>> end of the smtpd_re
> wiskbr...@hotmail.com:
>>
>>
>> Hello;
>>
>> I have an outsourced IM archival system, data from IM sessions
>> are sent to this system for archive via email. We select an IM
>> message for un-archival, which is then emailed to us. The problem
>> I am having is that even prior to arrival at the
Wietse Venema wrote:
Roderick A. Anderson:
Also, would postscreen_cache_map work with a mysql backend?
postscreen needs very low latency (I put in explicit tests for
this). Also, postscreen requires read, write, iterate support
which is implemented only for file-based databases.
If table acce
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:56:26AM -0400, James R. Marcus wrote:
> The remote SMTP server is vulnerable to a buffer overflow.
>
> Description :
>
> The remote SMTP server crashes when it is sent a command
> with a too long argument.
Please post associated Postfix logs when you are reporting sus
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:46, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>> Try it an see. If it fails to connect or times out, and local policy
>> and/or message parameters allow this, fall back to SMTP. Specific
>> detail are probably subject to d
Zitat von Robert Schetterer :
Am 28.05.2010 14:13, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von LuKreme :
On 27-May-2010, at 07:34, Andy Dills wrote:
I've been investigating postscreen, as we've been address probed/bombed
for years, as we have a few domains that are very old (well, early 90s)
tha
Hi,
We are trying to use the smtp_fallback_relay feature for LMTP & SMTPas
specified in LMtP & SMTP manual pages.
We have designed our service to have a tiered hardware. The primarytries to
deliver, if there is a problem, the message is relayed to asecondary hardware
with very large disks, etc
On 2010-05-28 11:56 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
> FYI, I do run SSH on various unassigned ports. That's because I
> don't want the log floods I'd get if I had SSH facing the wild on
> port 22 (I've had on a couple days over a million dictionary attempts
> to root, all unsuccessful, but occupying 99% of
Charles Account:
> Hi,
> We are trying to use the smtp_fallback_relay feature for LMTP q
> SMTPas specified in LMtP & SMTP manual pages.
smtp_fallback_relay is an SMTP-only feature.
Postfix LMTP client does not have a "backup" server mechanism.
Wietse
> Subject: Re: LMTP using smtp_fallback_relay
> To: cwo1...@hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:37:39 -0400
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> From: wie...@porcupine.org
>
> Charles Account:
>> Hi,
>> We are trying to use the smtp_fallback_relay feature for LMTP q
>> SMTPas specified in LMtP
Jesper Fruergaard Andersen a écrit :
> I am testing a new server running Postfix 2.7.0 on Ubuntu 10.4. I am
> using postmulti. The instance for receiving mail is setup like below.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel confused why messages for non existing accounts gets
> rejected wit
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:40:38PM +, Charles Account wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response.Do you have a configuration suggestion
> on how we can relay mail to the secondary serversif we can't initially
> deliver them via LMTP?
Use a load-balancer, if you have hot-hot equivalent LMTP server
James R. Marcus a écrit :
> Hi,
> I ran a Nessus scan last night and got a High Severity alert, which is
> frustratingly vague. At least most reports point me to other vulnerability
> sites to find a resolution.
>
> I'm wondering if this an issue with my version of Postfix, configuration, or
Wietse Venema put forth on 5/28/2010 9:37 AM:
> Ioannis Tsouvalas:
>>>
>>> Ioannis Tsouvalas:
451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing
451 Temporary local problem - please try later
>
> These you can do nothing about, except perhaps retry when the remote
> system is unde
Charles Account:
> >> We are trying to use the smtp_fallback_relay feature for LMTP q
> >> SMTPas specified in LMtP & SMTP manual pages.
> >
> > smtp_fallback_relay is an SMTP-only feature.
> >
> > Postfix LMTP client does not have a "backup" server mechanism.
>
> Thanks for the quick response.D
wiskbr...@hotmail.com:
> >> I have an outsourced IM archival system, data from IM sessions
> >> are sent to this system for archive via email. We select an IM
> >> message for un-archival, which is then emailed to us. The problem
> >> I am having is that even prior to arrival at the IM archiving
>
Hi
I am running majordomo with postfix for a number of email list, and I
have some trouble tracking down bounces. I thought that if I could have some
customized Received: headers with the envelope receiver logged
eg by "for " then I would be able to track some mutating adressees.
Seems like some
Keld Simonsen:
> Hi
>
> I am running majordomo with postfix for a number of email list, and I
> have some trouble tracking down bounces. I thought that if I could have some
> customized Received: headers with the envelope receiver logged
> eg by "for " then I would be able to track some mutating
Hello everyone,
I'm having a problem with postfix smtp delivery.
One of our destination sites has its servers stopping receiving messages when
they reach 20, and that is per connection.
So I need to tell postfix to send at most 20 messages per connection, and
reconnect again.
I looked up smtp_
m listus:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm having a problem with postfix smtp delivery.
> One of our destination sites has its servers stopping receiving messages when
> they reach 20, and that is per connection.
>
> So I need to tell postfix to send at most 20 messages per connection, and
> reconnect
Hello Wietse,
So I guess the default behavior does fill my needs (10 < max=20).
smtp_connection_cache_reuse_limit (default: 10)
Thank you!
Regards,
mlistus
--- On Sat, 5/29/10, Wietse Venema wrote:
> From: Wietse Venema
> Subject: Re: limit messages per connection
> To: "m listus"
> Cc: po
m listus:
> So I need to tell postfix to send at most 20 messages per connection,
> and reconnect again.
Wietse:
> See http://www.postfix.org/CONNECTION_CACHE_README.html
m listus:
>So I guess the default behavior does fill my needs (10 < max=20).
>smtp_connection_cache_reuse_limit (default: 10)
62 matches
Mail list logo
