sunhux G put forth on 11/16/2010 1:18 AM:
> Suppose POP3 & IMAP were disabled on the MS Exchange server,
> would fetchmail still work? Sounds like it uses POP3 / IMAP protocol.
>
> So what I'm looking for is a php script to emulate this without using
> POP3/IMAP
This mailing list is for Postfix
* sunhux G [16/11/2010 09:02] :
>
> So what I'm looking for is a php script to emulate this without using
> POP3/IMAP
If you can't use POP or IMAP, I'm pretty sure that you're stuck using
MAPI, Exchange's native (and non-standard) protocol.
Emmanuel
Hi, I would put an mail address in my black list and then I have modified
local.cf:
blacklist from t...@hotmail.it
..but in log file I have still:
Nov 15 18:30:38 mail amavis[6974]: (06974-10) Checking: [82.51.y.x]
->
Nov 15 18:30:40 mail amavis[6974]: (06974-10) FWD via SMTP:
[127.0.0.1]:10
Zitat von Victor Duchovni :
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:00:42PM +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Conditionally compiling-in support for such a library is a bit painful,
though opendkim seems to have taken that approach. They have a DNS lookup
driver layer, and the driver reports whether it can
Dear Team,
I am using centos version 5 .some times we have facing:
*("
http://download.webmin.com/download/yum/webmin-1.520-1.noarch.rpm/repodata/repomd.xml:
[Errno 14] HTTP Error 404: Not Found*
*Trying other mirror.*
*Error: Cannot retrieve repository metadata (repomd.xml) for repository:
Webmi
On 2010-11-16 5:15 AM, Sasa wrote:
> because t...@hotmail.it isn't blocked ?
> In my mail server I use postfix/amavisd-new, spamassassin, clamav and Maia.
> Thanks.
Per the welcome message you received when you joined the list:
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mai
Jonathan Thorpe:
> When the vacation program tries to send out the away message to
> the sender, it attempts to invoke postdrop and this results in
> the logs showing:
> mail_queue_enter: create file maildrop/684525.5891: Permission denied
Fix your SELINUX or APPARMOR etc. configuration.
15.11.2010 14:08, Ignacio García wrote:
> Hi there...
>
> I'm having a problem with one of our servers. We have been blocked by
> CBL because one of our customers have been sending many emails recently
> from his php-based bulletin system. This system does not send lots of
> emails (it's programme
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:15:48 +0100, Sasa wrote:
> Hi, I would put an mail address in my black list and then I have
> modified local.cf:
>
> blacklist from t...@hotmail.it
Your syntax is bad. And this question was answered on the amavisd-new
mailing list, though it probably should have been as
Here is a better explanation about my problem:
When an e-mail is delivered to an alias, and one or more users in the
alias-list, had their mailbox locked, because they are reading their
mails through dovecot pop3 service, the original mail is delivered to
the members-list that don't have their ma
Christian Roessner:
> >> I am interested in including the DWL feature from SpamHaus into
> >> postfix.
> > Wietse:
> >> DWL requires content external content inspection. For example, a
> >> Milter, or a before-or-after-queue SMTP-based filter. Either approach
> >> can be used to verify the DKIM si
I think you need to define an alias-owner for each alias that
needs the members to be tracked individually, like a mailing
list. Otherwise, some batching of addresses is used with the
observed results.
Cheers,
Ken
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:37:15PM -0300, Mariel Sebedio wrote:
> Here is a better
I have a small SoHo network of machines and I have postfix installed on
most of them for sending mail. The machines sit behind a NAT router
which connects them to the internet, the domain name (as seen from the
outside world) is zbmc.eu. All the machines are running xubuntu 10.04
and have postfi
Chris G wrote:
I have a small SoHo network of machines and I have postfix installed on
most of them for sending mail. The machines sit behind a NAT router
which connects them to the internet, the domain name (as seen from the
outside world) is zbmc.eu. All the machines are running xubuntu 10.0
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:52:36AM -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Chris G wrote:
> >I have a small SoHo network of machines and I have postfix installed on
> >most of them for sending mail. The machines sit behind a NAT router
> >which connects them to the internet, the domain name (as seen from
Chris G:
> Yes, I realise that "It connects from 84.45.228.40" but I can find no
> reason at all *why* the postfix server process on mws.zbmc.eu thinks
> that the connection is from 84.45.228.40.
Because the operating system kernel said so when Postfix asked.
Wietse
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:34:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Chris G:
> > Yes, I realise that "It connects from 84.45.228.40" but I can find no
> > reason at all *why* the postfix server process on mws.zbmc.eu thinks
> > that the connection is from 84.45.228.40.
>
> Because the operating syste
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:06:27PM +, Chris G wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:34:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Chris G:
> > > Yes, I realise that "It connects from 84.45.228.40" but I can find no
> > > reason at all *why* the postfix server process on mws.zbmc.eu thinks
> > > that t
Thanks a lot.. this is the solution I was waiting for..
This solved my problem, thanks
On 11/16/2010 12:45 PM, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
I think you need to define an alias-owner for each alias that
needs the members to be tracked individually, like a mailing
list. Otherwise, some batching of ad
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Chris G wrote:
Yes, I realise that "It connects from 84.45.228.40" but I can find no
reason at all *why* the postfix server process on mws.zbmc.eu thinks
that the connection is from 84.45.228.40.
Because that's where it came from.
Wherever I look on my LAN the IP addres
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 08:38:20PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps an improved error logging could save somebody the effort
>>> of troubleshooting.
>>
>
> I think Mark is looking for improved logging in the SMTP server when
> connections to the proxy fail. Perh
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:13:48PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:06:27PM +, Chris G wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:34:38PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Chris G:
> > > > Yes, I realise that "It connects from 84.45.228.40" but I can find no
> > > > reas
Hi there,
I have Postfix integrated with LDAP, Postfix will validate against LDAP
for recipient and domain. But for messages to "medplus.com", I want it
to use mail relay to another SMTP server at our company. What
complicates the matter is that I have one Postfix instance serving
messages from t
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:29:07PM +0100, Daniel Hahler wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 08:38:20PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> >>> Perhaps an improved error logging could save somebody the effort
> >>> of troubleshooting.
> >>
> >
> > I think Mark is looking
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:39:49PM +, Chris G wrote:
> > It sounds like you have both Postfix and Sendmail on the same systems,
> > and perhaps confused about which MTA is handling which mail.
>
> When I say 'sendmail' I just mean the postfix executable of that name
> which is used by mutt (am
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:27:56PM -0600, Larry Stone wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Chris G wrote:
>
> >Yes, I realise that "It connects from 84.45.228.40" but I can find no
> >reason at all *why* the postfix server process on mws.zbmc.eu thinks
> >that the connection is from 84.45.228.40.
>
> Be
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:41:47PM -0500, Zhou, Yan wrote:
> My theory is that message will be validated against LDAP first, if the
> address is not found in LDAP, it would gets relayed using relayhost, is
> that correct?
Not if you specify a conent_filter, which is the case below. The
content_fi
Hey Guys,
i have 2 Servers but only one Server is able to speak IPv6.
What i want is the following:
Outgouing eMail IPv4 -> Postfix IPv4 -> Relay Postfix IPv6 -> Dest
Mail-Server IPv4/IPv6
Is that possible with simple Mail-Relay?
What is possible to is:
Check is dest. Mail-Server able
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:50:02PM +, Chris G wrote:
> So where is there a system sending this mail which appears to be
> 84.45.228.40?
>
> From what I can see in the logs the mail isn't going out to the outside
> world and coming back in, it's just going from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.4.
Th
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:47:26PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:39:49PM +, Chris G wrote:
>
> > > It sounds like you have both Postfix and Sendmail on the same systems,
> > > and perhaps confused about which MTA is handling which mail.
> >
> > When I say 'sendmail
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:58:06PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:50:02PM +, Chris G wrote:
>
> > So where is there a system sending this mail which appears to be
> > 84.45.228.40?
> >
> > From what I can see in the logs the mail isn't going out to the outside
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:52 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: how to support relay host with per-IP routing
>
> On Tue, Nov 16
On 11/16/2010 2:03 PM, Chris G wrote:
Er, it's Postfix isn't it? :-) Or have I misunderstood completely
(quite likely!).
When I 'telnet mws.zbmc.eu 25' from the client it does connect to
mws.zbmc.eu (192.168.1.4) and mws.zbmc.eu reports the connection to be
coming from 192.168.1.2 which is dps
Zitat von Daniel :
Hey Guys,
i have 2 Servers but only one Server is able to speak IPv6.
What i want is the following:
Outgouing eMail IPv4 -> Postfix IPv4 -> Relay Postfix IPv6 -> Dest
Mail-Server IPv4/IPv6
Is that possible with simple Mail-Relay?
What is possible to is:
Check is des
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:21:04PM -0500, Zhou, Yan wrote:
> > Not if you specify a content_filter, which is the case below. The
> > content_filter pre-empts normal routing, and all mail is sent to
> > the filter first.
>
> Is there a way for me to do what I wanted (direct traffic by different
>
RCF 5321 says:
4.5.3.1.1. Local-part
The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64
octets.
RFC 2821 says:
local-part
The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64 characters.
RFC 821 says:
user
The maximum total length of a use
> But where IS the actual limit in postfix?
> max_line_lenght - lenght(RCPT TO:<>) ?
To limit the size of a command parameter, use regular expression
bounds.
/.+{number}/ reject
and variations thereof.
Wietse
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:50:47PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> I received no error message; but when using a domain literal
> exceeeding 63 characters I received an error.
Domain literals are in the domain-part. Not the local-part.
> But where IS the actual limit in postfix?
> max_line_leng
* Victor Duchovni :
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:50:47PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> > I received no error message; but when using a domain literal
> > exceeeding 63 characters I received an error.
>
> Domain literals are in the domain-part. Not the local-part.
Yes. I just mentioned it, b
* Wietse Venema :
> > But where IS the actual limit in postfix?
> > max_line_lenght - lenght(RCPT TO:<>) ?
>
> To limit the size of a command parameter, use regular expression
> bounds.
>
> /.+{number}/ reject
>
> and variations thereof.
Thanks, that was simple
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsb
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> * Wietse Venema :
> > > But where IS the actual limit in postfix?
> > > max_line_lenght - lenght(RCPT TO:<>) ?
> >
> > To limit the size of a command parameter, use regular expression
> > bounds.
> >
> > /.+{number}/ reject
> >
> > and variations thereof.
> Thanks, that was s
Le 16/11/2010 20:50, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit :
RCF 5321 says:
4.5.3.1.1. Local-part
The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64
octets.
RFC 2821 says:
local-part
The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64 characters.
RFC 821 say
Le 16/11/2010 19:58, Chris G a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:47:26PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:39:49PM +, Chris G wrote:
It sounds like you have both Postfix and Sendmail on the same systems,
and perhaps confused about which MTA is handling which mail.
Hi there,
This is I wish to accomplish with one single instance of Postfix that
has two different IPs. Having traffic coming to one IP be processed
differently than the other, and use LDAP to validate domain &
recipients.
This is master.cf: (I do not know how to define separate transports)
:sm
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, mouss wrote:
so, your client says
relay=zbmc.eu[84.45.228.40]
and your server says
reject: RCPT from unknown[84.45.228.40]
So your client and server have the same IP. This means that they run on the
same box. is it so? if so, why didn't you say it before?
Zhou, Yan:
> Hi there,
>
> This is I wish to accomplish with one single instance of Postfix that
> has two different IPs. Having traffic coming to one IP be processed
> differently than the other, and use LDAP to validate domain &
> recipients.
I recommend that you don't waste time, and set up t
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:26:29PM -0500, Zhou, Yan wrote:
> This is I wish to accomplish with one single instance of Postfix that
> has two different IPs. Having traffic coming to one IP be processed
> differently than the other, and use LDAP to validate domain &
> recipients.
What does "differe
I use Gentoo and their etc-update script to update my config files.
After updating to postfix-2.7.1 I noticed that etc-update wanted to
change the following entry in master.cf:
smtps inet n - n - - smtpd
-o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes
to the following:
smtps
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:30:48PM -0800, Grant wrote:
> After updating to postfix-2.7.1 I noticed that etc-update wanted to
> change the following entry in master.cf:
>
> smtps inet n - n - - smtpd
> -o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes
The one above is correct.
49 matches
Mail list logo
