Hi.
I'm having quite some trouble trying to prevent backscatter on my
postfix server. Mail queue is filled with undeliverable mailer daemon
messages. Yesterday I added local_recipient_maps but it dosn't seem to
have helped...
My postconf -n follows:
alias_maps =
broken_sasl_auth_clients = ye
* Martin Kruse Jensen :
> Hi.
>
> I'm having quite some trouble trying to prevent backscatter on my
> postfix server. Mail queue is filled with undeliverable mailer daemon
> messages. Yesterday I added local_recipient_maps but it dosn't seem
> to have helped...
WHAT exactly is bouncing? Check the
Den 28-10-2010 10:36, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev:
* Martin Kruse Jensen:
Hi.
I'm having quite some trouble trying to prevent backscatter on my
postfix server. Mail queue is filled with undeliverable mailer daemon
messages. Yesterday I added local_recipient_maps but it dosn't seem
to have helped...
* Martin Kruse Jensen :
> Den 28-10-2010 10:36, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev:
> >* Martin Kruse Jensen:
> >>Hi.
> >>
> >>I'm having quite some trouble trying to prevent backscatter on my
> >>postfix server. Mail queue is filled with undeliverable mailer daemon
> >>messages. Yesterday I added local_recipi
Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
rest is missing:
.
Oct 28 11:30:50 darkstar postfix/smtpd[17528]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from camomile.cloud9.net[168.100.1.3]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
Client host [168.1
00.1.3] blocked using spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net;
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:37 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
> Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
> rest is missing:
>
LOL, hrmm Q, is the postfix lists the only mail coming from
camomile.cloud9.net? or do these servers host other stuff as well
> .
>
> Покотиленко Костик put forth on 10/27/2010 7:20 AM:
> > Can somebody comment on this please.
> >
> > В Вто, 26/10/2010 в 18:20 +0300, Покотиленко Костик пишет:
> >> I'm now trying to move all RBL and RHSBL checks to policyd-weight. In
> >> policyd-weight I set "$ADD_X_HEADER = 1" and very high s
В Чтв, 28/10/2010 в 19:59 +1000, Noel Butler пишет:
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:37 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
> > Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
> > rest is missing:
> >
>
> LOL, hrmm Q, is the postfix lists the only mail coming from
> camomile.cloud9.n
* Martin Kruse Jensen :
> Nice cmd - I'm sure I'll have much joy of that. Here's the full output:
If you like that, please check out "pfqueue" :)
> <2...@grefta.dk>: user unknown. Command output: Invalid user specified.
So, find out why mail for 2...@grefta.dk is being accepted...
In which map
> On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
>
>
> > sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years
> > and are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist
> > for them.
>
> That is complete FUD, yes, I know what their website says, but know
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:15 -0400, John Peach wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000 Noel Butler
> > ausics.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко
> > Костик wrote: > > > > > sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get
> > blocked for several years and > > are not w
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 14:13 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
>
> > I have an automated script that runs over all of our mail servers log
> > files daily searching for IP's that send to
> > known spamtrap addresses and also on my private server (this domain),
> > addresses that never existed, and
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:28:42 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:15 -0400, John Peach wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:17:00 +1000
> > Noel Butler wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 14:11 +0300, Покотиленко Костик wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > sorbs.net is very agr
Den 28-10-2010 13:01, Ralf Hildebrandt skrev:
* Martin Kruse Jensen:
Nice cmd - I'm sure I'll have much joy of that. Here's the full output:
If you like that, please check out "pfqueue" :)
<2...@grefta.dk>: user unknown. Command output: Invalid user specified.
So, find out why mail for 2...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:52:27 -0400
John Peach articulated:
> I never said it was a false positive. Just that it's a waste of time
> trying to get delisted; we gave up with that years ago.
If you mean "years ago"literally, then I might suggest that you revisit
it. "The Times They Are a-Changin'"
Noel Butler:
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:37 +0300, ??? ?? wrote:
>
> > Hehe, noticed I've got just 2 replies on my thread from Noel Butler,
> > rest is missing:
>
> LOL, hrmm Q, is the postfix lists the only mail coming from
> camomile.cloud9.net? or do these servers host other stuff as
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:04:35AM +0200, Rok Poto??nik wrote:
>> The default summary is for the incoming and active queues. An explicit
>> list of queue names can be given on the command line. Non-absolute queue
>> names are interpreted relative to the Postfix queue directory. Use
>> to specify
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 02:20:51PM -0200, Leonardo Rodrigues wrote:
> nnn.domain.com.br (about 40 different subdomains) have only 2 (two)
> DNS entries:
>
> nnnINMX10 server.nnn.domain.com.br.
> nnnINTXT"v=spf1 include:domain.com.br -all"
| ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUE
Hello
this is not urgent. our postfix system runs great using open-vz and
debian lenny.
However I've been using postfix for a long time, and know that I am
far from an expert on postfix.
We send and receive mail for our local network. In addition I've
recently setup secure smtp so that we can u
On 10/28/2010 06:04 PM, Robert Fantini wrote:
Hello
this is not urgent. our postfix system runs great using open-vz and
debian lenny.
However I've been using postfix for a long time, and know that I am
far from an expert on postfix.
We send and receive mail for our local network. In addition
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:11:59PM +0300, ??? ?? wrote:
> I have the following postfix configuration:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
snip
> reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
In all this thread, no one that I have seen has yet mentioned that
DSBL has been defunct since 2008, ov
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:59:39 +0200
Jeroen Geilman articulated:
> You could use TLS instead of the (deprecated) SMTPS.
> SMTPS is only required for incoherent clients such as MS Outook.
All versions of MS Outlook XP/2003 or newer support 587/TLS. There are
several deprecated MUAs that require SMT
Hello,
I want to use postfix for active/active mode.
Here is my dns settings:
mycompany.com MX 10 first.mycompany.com
mycompany.com MX 10 second.mycompany.com
"first" and "second" machine are located in the different physical location
I have two issues here:
1) where should I point my pop se
On 2010-10-28 Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 06:04 PM, Robert Fantini wrote:
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>> permit_mynetworks,
>> permit_sasl_authenticated,
>
> You need to swap those two to be able to send authenticated mail from
> outside your network.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Peter wrote:
> I want to use postfix for active/active mode.
No, you want to cluster your mailstore (IMAP, POP, ...). This is not
Postfix. Multiple Postfix MX hosts do not need to be clustered, the
SMTP design automatically load-balances multiple MX hosts
On 10/28/2010 08:42 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-10-28 Jeroen Geilman wrote:
On 10/28/2010 06:04 PM, Robert Fantini wrote:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
You need to swap those two to be able to
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:42:27PM +0200, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2010-10-28 Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> > On 10/28/2010 06:04 PM, Robert Fantini wrote:
> >> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> >> permit_mynetworks,
> >> permit_sasl_authenticated,
> >
> > You need to swa
Hi Victor,
thanks for your response.
> > I want to use postfix for active/active mode.
>
> No, you want to cluster your mailstore (IMAP, POP, ...).
> This is not
> Postfix. Multiple Postfix MX hosts do not need to be
> clustered, the
> SMTP design automatically load-balances multiple MX hosts.
On 10/28/2010 09:03 PM, Robert Fantini wrote:
Add a dedicated submission listener for authenticated user submission on
port 587.
The docs will have details.
could I please have an example or link ? I have been searching...
The default master.cf has a commented submission example.
Yo
Le 25/10/2010 18:20, Leonardo Rodrigues a écrit :
Hi,
This question is not postfix-related so its somehow
off-topic. But it's related to mail systems, so i cant imagine any
other place to get some help on this subject.
I have a domain (domain.com.br) with lots of subdomains
On 10/28/2010 09:34 PM, mouss wrote:
while many domains have an A record, this is related to the web, not smtp.
Um.
You just finished stating that it is.
If domain.com has an A record but no MX record, mail reception will work
just fine for anyth...@something.domain.com - as long as
somethi
We have been requested to setup a TLS enforcement policy for one of our
clients to pass a security review.
The policy would require that certain client connections be forced to use
TLS to allow mail to be accepted.
These connections would be pre-determined routes - by IP address or Hostname
- fro
Le 26/10/2010 13:11, Покотиленко Костик a écrit :
[snip]
sorbs.net is very agressive, many ISPs get blocked for several years and
are not willing to delist b/c sorbs doesn't offer free delist for them.
- hmmm. if you refer to the delisting fee, this has changed. there's no
fee anymore.
- if t
On 10/28/2010 2:41 PM, Kevin Coveney wrote:
We have been requested to setup a TLS enforcement policy for
one of our clients to pass a security review.
The policy would require that certain client connections be
forced to use TLS to allow mail to be accepted.
These connections would be pre-determi
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 02:48:11PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>> However for incoming mail it looks like
>> "smtpd_tls_security_level" it is all or none on enforcement of
>> encryption.
>> Does such a control exist?
>
> You can use a check_client_access maps with "reject_plaintext_session"
> action
Le 28/10/2010 21:40, Jeroen Geilman a écrit :
On 10/28/2010 09:34 PM, mouss wrote:
while many domains have an A record, this is related to the web, not
smtp.
Um.
You just finished stating that it is.
If domain.com has an A record but no MX record, mail reception will
work just fine for any
On Friday 15 October 2010 16:53:40 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 03:05:33PM +0200, Stefan wrote:
> > in the appendix you will find a patch against Postfix 2.7.1 which adds
> > write support to Postfix' MySQL client.
> >
> > If someone like to test it, then he will find Postfix R
Thanks for the patch.
Stefan Jakobs:
> I'am not aware of any dead-lock issues. The sequence pseudo-thread
> will query the database only once with the first key. For every
> next key the sequence pseudo-thread is working with the results
> in the memory. With a very large database the size of the
> > My TLS setup is a bigger mess. The maillog tells me that a SSL
> session has
> > been established, but then the connection seems to get cleared by the
> client
> > (Droid). I've looked at many Postfix TLS How-to's, and some of them
> seem to
> > contradict the other.
>
> Again: "postconf -n".
Покотиленко Костик put forth on 10/28/2010 5:31 AM:
> a. mail was send directly from company's public ip which is DSL (shouldn't
> send direct)
> b. advertising company's mail server doesn't have revers DNS
> c. doesn't send proper hello
> d. advertising company's ip black listed by sorbs
Ahh, I
/dev/rob0 put forth on 10/28/2010 12:36 PM:
> SDLU is a descendent of the old SPAM-L list which, like DSBL, also
> closed in May 2008.
SDLU is a fork of spam-l.com, which itself is the direct descendant of
the Lsoft SPAM-L mailing list which closed in May 2008. None of this
matters to newcomers
Victor Duchovni put forth on 10/28/2010 2:00 PM:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Peter wrote:
>
>> I want to use postfix for active/active mode.
>
> No, you want to cluster your mailstore (IMAP, POP, ...). This is not
> Postfix. Multiple Postfix MX hosts do not need to be clustered, t
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 07:52 -0400, John Peach wrote:
> > Right, so, how is THAT a false positive, it is a justifiable listing
> > if they became part of the problem.
> >
> I never said it was a false positive. Just that it's a waste of time
> trying to get delisted; we gave up with that years a
43 matches
Mail list logo
