Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/5/2010 1:39 AM:
> On 11/05/10 00:11, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/4/2010 8:06 PM:
>>> On 11/04/2010 12:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ned Slider put forth on 11/3/2010 6:33 PM:
> My other thought was to simply comment (or docum
On 11/05/10 03:01, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/rules/branches/3.2/20_dynrdns.cf
>
> Did you happen to notice the absolutely tiny number of expressions in
> the SA file, as compared to the ~1600 in the file whose use I promote
> here? Maybe I should get
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 02:01:19AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/5/2010 1:39 AM:
> > On 11/05/10 00:11, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/4/2010 8:06 PM:
> >>> On 11/04/2010 12:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Ned Slider put forth on 11/3/
On 2010-11-04 23:36:04 -0300, Reinaldo de Carvalho wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Yes, it will generate *some* lookups, but it doesn't say exactly
> > *which* lookups. That was precisely my question.
>
> - client hostname (reverse dns hostname)
> - client IP
On 2010-11-05 06:21:20 +0100, mouss wrote:
> in short, for each map, you have multiple parameters:
> - the map type
> - the search context (check_client_access, check_sender_acces, ...
> transport, virtual_alias_maps, ... etc)
> - the list of search keys
[...]
Thanks a lot for this very detailed a
Zitat von mouss :
Le 05/11/2010 05:54, Pablo Chamorro a écrit :
Today we had a 'relaying denied' issue between 15:08-17:02 p.m.
Here it is the output of pflogsumm:
Per-Hour Traffic Summary
time received delivered deferredbounced rejected
-
On 11/4/2010 5:54 AM, Jerrale G wrote:
hellopostmas...@shetoncomputers.com,
You are receiving this message from dnswl.org because we try to identify and
notify
current users of our service about upcoming changes.
If you are not the right contact for issues dealing with spamfilters,
whitelisti
On 5/11/10 4:31 PM, mouss wrote:
>
> hmmm. here:
> $ host 74.125.45.27
> 27.45.125.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer yx-in-f27.1e100.net.
> $ host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
> gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has address 209.85.227.27
>
> 74.125.45.27 is a google IP, but I don't see it listed as the
Zitat von Ben McGinnes :
On 5/11/10 4:31 PM, mouss wrote:
hmmm. here:
$ host 74.125.45.27
27.45.125.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer yx-in-f27.1e100.net.
$ host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has address 209.85.227.27
74.125.45.27 is a google IP, but I don't see it
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> for (entry = list; entry; entry = entry->next) {
> Each map is a linked list of CIDR patterns, so consolidate as much as
> possible - 10 single IPs will cause noticable delays when the last
> entry matches!
Funny coincidence: just yesterday I added a Patricia (ra
Hello,
I want to configure postfix so that mails to u...@localhost and
u...@host.subdomain.domain are only accepted if the mail origins from
an IP address in $mynetworks, but that mails to u...@subdomain.domain
are always accepted. How can I do that?
Regards
Christoph
hi,
i'm using postfix 2.5.5 with a postgres backend setup. everything works
fine (as far as i can see) but looking at my logfiles i'm wondering why
the domain part of sender addresses is being looked up in my
virtual_mailbox_domains table.
i'm seeing lines like these in my logfiles:
postfix
Henrik K put forth on 11/5/2010 2:49 AM:
> Did you happen to notice the absolutely generic expressions in the SA file,
> unlike your file which mostly lists specific domains?
The bulk of them are specific to a given ISP. I saw a half dozen that
are generic.
> Not that I don't agree the whole SA
Matthias Leopold:
> hi,
>
> i'm using postfix 2.5.5 with a postgres backend setup. everything works
> fine (as far as i can see) but looking at my logfiles i'm wondering why
> the domain part of sender addresses is being looked up in my
> virtual_mailbox_domains table.
>
> i'm seeing lines lik
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 11/5/2010 4:03 AM:
> Testing the tld alone seems to be excluded by the access(5) man page,
> which only documents "domain.tld", i.e. the pattern must contain
> at least one dot. Is it an error in the man page (which could say
> "domain" instead, like in Section "Email
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:11:39AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Henrik K put forth on 11/5/2010 2:49 AM:
>
> > Did you happen to notice the absolutely generic expressions in the SA file,
> > unlike your file which mostly lists specific domains?
>
> The bulk of them are specific to a given ISP.
On 11/5/2010 8:32 AM, Christoph Pleger wrote:
Hello,
I want to configure postfix so that mails to u...@localhost and
u...@host.subdomain.domain are only accepted if the mail origins from
an IP address in $mynetworks, but that mails to u...@subdomain.domain
are always accepted. How can I do that?
Noel Jones wrote in late August 2010:
> B) a "permit" based system, a mirror of reject_rbl_client.
>
> This would have a user interface similar to the existing
> reject_rbl_client with expected usage similar to access(5)
> based whitelists.
>
> Seems to me that checks using sender-supplied info
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:03:34AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The current manpage text reads:
>
>reject_rbl_client rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
> ...
>permit_dnswl_client dnswl_domain=d.d.d.d
> Accept the request when the reversed client network address is
>
On 11/5/2010 10:03 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
This is now implemented with minor changes.
Excellent! Looking forward to a test drive.
-- Noel Jones
Victor Duchovni:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:03:34AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > The current manpage text reads:
> >
> >reject_rbl_client rbl_domain=d.d.d.d
> > ...
> >permit_dnswl_client dnswl_domain=d.d.d.d
> > Accept the request when the reversed client
>Should we mention that these should only be used to reduce FPs from
>blacklists that follow, and that are expected to not list legitimate
>clients. ...
Depends on the whitelist.
I'm working on Spamhaus' new whitelist where our goal is to list only
mail sources clean enough that you can skip the
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 12:27:06PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Should we mention that these should only be used to reduce FPs from
> > blacklists that follow, and that are expected to not list legitimate
> > clients. Thus any temporary DNS lookup error would likely result an an
> > additional
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 04:51:14PM -, John Levine wrote:
> >Should we mention that these should only be used to reduce FPs from
> >blacklists that follow, and that are expected to not list legitimate
> >clients. ...
>
> Depends on the whitelist.
>
> I'm working on Spamhaus' new whitelist whe
Dear, I'm in Internet and testing if my mail server is an Open Relay. So I
execute:
telnet mail.mycompany.com 25
After that I do:
mail from: us...@mycompany.com
OK
rcpt to: us...@mycompany.com
OK
data
This is a test !!!
.
QUEUED
The mail from user1 to user2 (both from my company) was sent OK !
On 11/05/2010 02:16 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Jeroen Geilman wrote:
for (entry = list; entry; entry = entry->next) {
Each map is a linked list of CIDR patterns, so consolidate as much as
possible - 10 single IPs will cause noticable delays when the last
entry matches!
Funny c
On 11/5/2010 2:28 PM, Alejandro Facultad wrote:
Dear, I'm in Internet and testing if my mail server is an Open
Relay. So I execute:
telnet mail.mycompany.com 25
After that I do:
mail from: us...@mycompany.com
OK
rcpt to: us...@mycompany.com
OK
data
This is a test !!!
.
QUEUED
The mail from us
Thanks but, is it right if coming from Internet I enter to your mail server and
after that I send a message from your mail account to your project manager's
mail account telling he's an asshole ???
I now SPF is ideal for avoid this behavior, but I think the first example is an
"open relay" feat
On 11/05/2010 03:41 PM, Alejandro Facultad wrote:
Thanks but, is it right if coming from Internet I enter to your mail
server and after that I send a message from your mail account to your
project manager's mail account telling he's an asshole ???
I now SPF is ideal for avoid this behavior, but
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:41 -0700, Alejandro Facultad wrote:
> Thanks but, is it right if coming from Internet I enter to your mail
> server and after that I send a message from your mail account to your
> project manager's mail account telling he's an asshole ???
>
> I now SPF is ideal for avoid
On 11/05/2010 12:41 PM, Alejandro Facultad wrote:
Thanks but, is it right if coming from Internet I enter to your mail
server and after that I send a message from your mail account to your
project manager's mail account telling he's an asshole ???
I now SPF is ideal for avoid this behavior, bu
On 11/5/2010 2:41 PM, Alejandro Facultad wrote:
Thanks but, is it right if coming from Internet I enter to
your mail server and after that I send a message from your
mail account to your project manager's mail account telling
he's an asshole ???
I now SPF is ideal for avoid this behavior, but I
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 12:41:06PM -0700, Alejandro Facultad wrote:
> Thanks but, is it right if coming from Internet I enter to your mail
> server and after that I send a message from your mail account to your
> project manager's mail account telling he's an asshole ???
Don't confuse the envelop
Le 05/11/2010 20:41, Alejandro Facultad a écrit :
Thanks but, is it right if coming from Internet I enter to your mail
server and after that I send a message from your mail account to your
project manager's mail account telling he's an asshole ???
that's the same as if someone sends you a le
But that would be spoofing not relay right?
Relay is when you let other users send emails to any other domain claiming be
someone in your organization.
Spoofing is when you pretend to be someone you are not, right now I cant
remember how to prevent this kind of attacks but you may search
Le 05/11/2010 22:26, Alfonso Alejandro Reyes Jimenez a écrit :
But that would be spoofing not relay right?
Relay is when you let other users send emails to any other domain
claiming be someone in your organization.
no there's no claim.
open relay is when someone uses your server to send ma
Thanks to those that responded.
>On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> Is there a way to tell postfix to log a more informational message
>> when smtpd_recipient_limit is exceeded? If it just logged the
>> same message it is sending to the client ("452 4.5.3 Error: too
>> many recipien
> This is now implemented with minor changes. [...]
I have uploaded postfix-2.8-20101105-nonprod for testing (nonprod
because this is SMTP server code, and I mostly rely on postscreen's
DNS whitelisting feature).
ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/postfix-release/index.html and
mirror site
My apologies for shouting, but this wrong idea just won't go away:
> If Postfix can't determine the client's reverse domain
>(tempfail) and therefore cannot even ask SpamHaus whether the
>(verified) client (PTR) domain is on the whitelist,
NO! NO, NO, NO!
Do NOT look up rDNS in the DWL. If
On 11/5/2010 5:59 PM, Richard Stockton wrote:
Thanks to those that responded.
>On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> Is there a way to tell postfix to log a more informational
message
>> when smtpd_recipient_limit is exceeded? If it just logged the
>> same message it is sending to t
On 11/5/2010 6:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
This is now implemented with minor changes. [...]
I have uploaded postfix-2.8-20101105-nonprod for testing (nonprod
because this is SMTP server code, and I mostly rely on postscreen's
DNS whitelisting feature).
ftp://ftp.porcupine.org/mirrors/po
41 matches
Mail list logo
