Hi,
I have a problem that the smtpd_proxy_filter option has higher priority than a
FILTER setting in an access table:
Sep 30 12:33:04 mx0 postfix/smtpd[5250]: warning: access table
cidr:/etc/postfix/maps/client_access.cidr: with smtpd_proxy_filter specified,
action FILTER is unavailable
What
Hello,
I have setup a postfix server for scanning mails for spam relayed through it
and I have redirected all port 25 traffic through it from my firewall but when
I try sending mails through
telnet for example smtp.gmail.com 25
I still get through without seeing any transcation on the postfix se
On 9/30/2010 8:16 AM, Cimoni Enwis Ogwujiakwu wrote:
> Hello,
> I have setup a postfix server for scanning mails for spam relayed
> through it and I have redirected all port 25 traffic through it from my
> firewall but when I try sending mails through
> telnet for example smtp.gmail.com 25
> I sti
On Sep 30, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Cimoni Enwis Ogwujiakwu wrote:
> Hello,
> I have setup a postfix server for scanning mails for spam relayed through it
> and I have redirected all port 25 traffic through it from my firewall but
> when I try sending mails through
> telnet for example smtp.gmail.com
Today I found a interesting problem regarding postscreen and a popular
(?) address verification milter in sendmail
>From my logs:
Sep 30 15:23:53 mail postfix/postscreen[21955]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
[192.109.31.12]: 550 5.5.1 Protocol error; from=<>, to=,
proto=SMTP, helo=
Sep 30 15:23:53
Hello
When I configured client to send mails via postfix server, everything works
fine but I do not want the clients to enter the postfix server address when
sending mails. I still want them to point to their respective smtp server like
smtp.example.com and be redirected on the firewall through
On 09/30/2010 06:35 PM, Cimoni Enwis Ogwujiakwu wrote:
Hello
When I configured client to send mails via postfix server, everything
works fine but I do not want the clients to enter the postfix server
address when sending mails.
Then your postfix server isn't going to scan the messages.
They
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 04:18:47PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> I cannot say anything about the milter in use. A prior bug report of
> mine against "Smart Sendmail Filters"
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2815073&group_id=131540&atid=721356
>
> "The sender address verifi
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:48:19PM +0200, Christian R??ner wrote:
> I have a problem that the smtpd_proxy_filter option has higher priority
> than a FILTER setting in an access table:
No, it does not. Rather, these are completely separate mechanisms, and
there is no reason to expect post-queue FI
* Victor Duchovni :
> Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
No tcpdump, but I have this:
Sep 30 15:23:53 mail postfix/postscreen[21955]: CONNECT from 192.109.31.12
Sep 30 15:23:53 mail postfix/postscreen[21955]:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
Is it?
4.3.1 Sequencing Overview
...
One important reply is the connection greeting. Normally, a receiver
will send a
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:07:23AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> > sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
>
> Is it?
>
> 4.3.1 Sequencing Overview
> ...
>O
-- Original Message --
From: Claus Assmann
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:07:23 -0700
>On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
>> Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
>> sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
Claus Assmann:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > Do you have a tcpdump capture? From the above it sounds like HELO is
> > sent before the 220 banner. That's a protocol error.
>
> Is it?
>
> 4.3.1 Sequencing Overview
> ...
>One important reply is the connection greeting. N
* Len Conrad :
> I've used pregreet on some very high volume MX for months, and had one FP.
I had these two (within one year), both with sendmails with (presumably!)
the same (?) milter.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Camp
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> 192.109.31.12 is running:
> 220 mail.EMBL-Hamburg.DE ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2; Thu, 30 Sep
> 2010 16:06:22 +0200; (No UCE/UBE) logging access from:
> mail.charite.de(OK)-mail.charite.de [141.42.202.200]
I found another one:
220 klx11.klinikum-amberg.de ESMTP
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:27:30PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt :
>
> > 192.109.31.12 is running:
> > 220 mail.EMBL-Hamburg.DE ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-2; Thu, 30 Sep
> > 2010 16:06:22 +0200; (No UCE/UBE) logging access from:
> > mail.charite.de(OK)-mail.charit
Hi there,
I am using Postfix 2.3.3 to integrate with RedHat Open LDAP server. I
verified that my LDAP set up is correct, because I used the same
configuration on another Postfix server, it worked.
The following is how I ask LDAP to validate domain name.
main.cf:
mydestination = $myhostname, l
On 09/30/2010 09:54 PM, Zhou, Yan wrote:
Hi there,
I am using Postfix 2.3.3 to integrate with RedHat Open LDAP server. I
verified that my LDAP set up is correct, because I used the same
configuration on another Postfix server, it worked.
The following is how I ask LDAP to validate domain name.
Le 30/09/2010 12:48, Christian Rößner a écrit :
Hi,
I have a problem that the smtpd_proxy_filter option has higher priority than a
FILTER setting in an access table:
if you use a proxy filter, _all_ mail goes to the proxy filter.
Sep 30 12:33:04 mx0 postfix/smtpd[5250]: warning: access t
Here is a similar incident with a milter not understanding multiline
responses, as well as shooting out the query without waiting for a
greeting. Below is my side of the correspondence with its author
and with the postmaster of the site where it was first observed.
From: Mark Martinec
To: Eugene
After a relay serving as a backup MX enqueues a message because the
primary is down, and then the relay is reloaded with a different
configuration such that it no longer is relaying mail, will Postfix
still continue to attempt forwarding the already-queued messages?
--
Yang Zhang
http://yz.mit.edu/
Thanks, Jeroen, see my comment below.
> > postmap -qv test.medplus.com ldap:acceptdomains
> > postmap: fatal: open database test.medplus.com.db: No such file or
> > directory
> >
>
This is the output of postmap -vq test.medplus.com ldap:acceptdomains
It does query into LDAP but returns noth
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:55:50PM -0700, Yang Zhang wrote:
> After a relay serving as a backup MX enqueues a message because the
> primary is down, and then the relay is reloaded with a different
> configuration such that it no longer is relaying mail, will Postfix
> still continue to attempt for
24 matches
Mail list logo
