On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:17:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> 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 s
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:42:21PM -0600, Larry Stone wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:34:50PM -0500, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:47:45AM +, Chris G wrote:
>
> ... and that has resolved the DNS/IP problem at least though I'm still
> getting "relaying denied". So now the relayhost (192.168.1.4) is
> rejecting the E-Mail from the client (192.168.1.2) even though I have:-
>
> mynetworks = 12
Hi there,
I appreciate everyone's trying to help, that is what I like about this
group. Here is the context of what I am trying to do.
We are doing system integration for two software system to exchange
messages. Our industry standards requires the use of emails for message
exchange, so that a
Thanks for the pointers guys. I was able to rectify the problem in the
master.cf file. Now it is working well.
regards
Wire
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 13:43 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Wire James :
>
> > The entries that altermime added in the main.cf are;
> > #
> > content_filter=altermime
greetings,
i'm pretty new at this. my problem could be obvious.
i have a primary internet connection and a backup. sometimes the primary
side will tell the backup side to deliver mail for it. at least, that's
what i think based on what i see in the maillog snippets below.
mail that should be
>> 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.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/smtpd.8.html
>
>>
Hello All,
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't like
certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
I'm wondering if it doesn't like the 4th octet of the IP's being a zero.
Any help appreciated!
Here is a small piece of the log file:
-[MsgHour:1326.32]
Jack wrote:
Hello All,
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't like
certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
The error message seems reasonably clear. You shouldn't have any
non-zero bits after the bit position indicated by the network size (/23
below).
I.e. those CI
On 11/17/2010 11:54 AM, Jack wrote:
Hello All,
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't like
certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
I'm wondering if it doesn't like the 4th octet of the IP's being a zero.
Any help appreciated!
Here is a small piece of the log file:
The
> I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't
> like certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
The error message seems reasonably clear. You shouldn't have any non-zero
bits after the bit position indicated by the network size (/23 below).
I.e. those CIDR entries are inconsiste
Hi Jack!
> If I am blocking 194.149.65.0/23 this is a standard format, it tells us that
> the IP's are the 194.149.65.0-255 and 194.149.66.0-255.
This is where you've got it wrong, it means 94.149.64.0-255 and
94.149.65.0-255. If you need 65 and 66 you will need to specify two /24
CIDR entries: 194
All,
We are experiencing a problem where Postfix (Using 2.6.2) continuously returns
a 503 5.7.0 Error: access denied response.
The scenario is as follows (see log snipet below for sequence details):
The client MTA attempts to send a message. On the DOT command, Postfix
returns: '451 4.3.0 E
On 11/17/2010 12:12 PM, Jack wrote:
I am using CIDR lookups and am getting some warnings when it doesn't
like certain IP blocks in my CIDR list.
The error message seems reasonably clear. You shouldn't have any non-zero
bits after the bit position indicated by the network size (/23 below).
I.e.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:47:45AM +, Chris G wrote:
> ch...@dps:/etc/postfix$ host mws.zbmc.eu
> mws.zbmc.eu has address 192.168.1.4
> mws.zbmc.eu is an alias for zbmc.eu.
> mws.zbmc.eu is an alias for zbmc.eu.
> zbmc.eu mail is handled by 10 zbmc.eu.
It is not legal for
On 11/17/2010 12:12 PM, Jack wrote:
Hi Mark, thanks for your response, and I apologize if my brain is not
grasping what your saying.
If I am blocking 194.149.65.0/23 this is a standard format, it tells us that
the IP's are the 194.149.65.0-255 and 194.149.66.0-255.
Are we saying that the CIDR rul
Hi Jack!
> If I am blocking 194.149.65.0/23 this is a standard format, it tells
> us that the IP's are the 194.149.65.0-255 and 194.149.66.0-255.
This is where you've got it wrong, it means 94.149.64.0-255 and
94.149.65.0-255. If you need 65 and 66 you will need to specify two /24 CIDR
entries:
On 2010-11-17 Jay G. Scott wrote:
> now -- my relay_recipient_maps parameter points to pfknown_users
> which has the form:
> ttt OK
> do i have to have ...@arlut.utexas.edu OK ?
Yes.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning."
--J
now -- my relay_recipient_maps parameter points to pfknown_users which has
the form:
ttt OK
do i have to have ...@arlut.utexas.edu OK ? because i've seen one piece
of email get delivered today. is it possible my present format will work
sometimes but not others? and the u...@... form fix
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:24:12PM +, George Forman wrote:
>
> The scenario is as follows (see log snipet below for sequence details):
>The client MTA attempts to send a message. On the DOT command, Postfix
> returns: '451 4.3.0 Error: queue file write error'
This happens when a milter
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:40:38PM +0100, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2010-11-17 Jay G. Scott wrote:
> > now -- my relay_recipient_maps parameter points to pfknown_users
> > which has the form:
> > ttt OK
> > do i have to have ...@arlut.utexas.edu OK ?
>
> Yes.
>
> Regards
> Ansgar Wieche
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:01:05PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > I am looking for suggestions on a longer term solution.
> > I have made a change in smtpd_proto function:
> >
> > New code:
> > /* XXX We use the real client for connect access control. */
> > if (state->
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:25:52PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:47:45AM +, Chris G wrote:
>
> > ch...@dps:/etc/postfix$ host mws.zbmc.eu
> > mws.zbmc.eu has address 192.168.1.4
> > mws.zbmc.eu is an alias for zbmc.eu.
> > mws.zbmc.eu is an alias fo
I have a sender from a web hosting company who is not able to send to
one of my users. The log entry looks like this:
Nov 16 10:50:57 smtp postfix/smtpd[15063]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
ip67-89-97-251.z97-89-67.customer.algx.net[67.89.97.251]: 554 5.7.1
: Client host
rejected: Access den
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:32:24PM +, Chris G wrote:
> > It is not legal for a DNS CNAME RRset to coexist with other data for
> > the same domain name. Nor should you have multiple CNAME records for
> > the same domain.
> >
> > If "mdw.zmbc.edu" is a host with "A" records, it must not be a CN
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:01:05 -0500
> From: victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Invalid response code: 503 5.7.0 Error: access denied
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:24:12PM +, George Forman wrote:
>
> >
> > The scenario is as follows (see log
Victor Duchovni:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:01:05PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > > I am looking for suggestions on a longer term solution.
> > > I have made a change in smtpd_proto function:
> > >
> > > New code:
> > > /* XXX We use the real client for connect access control.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 07:26:35PM +, George Forman wrote:
> > No, RFC 2821/5321 notwithstanding, Postfix must reject RSET, to give
> > clients a chance to disconnect before before real mail is rejected.
> > So DO NOT exempt "rset_cmd". Otherwise, the change makes sense. Postfix
> > gives the
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:37:27PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > The problem here is that smtpd_access_denied is misused from its original
> > intent of reporting 503 after a client fails to heed a 554 banner. Perhaps
> > the intended "421" disconnect on the next command should use a different
>
* vr :
>
> I have a sender from a web hosting company who is not able to send to
> one of my users. The log entry looks like this:
>
> Nov 16 10:50:57 smtp postfix/smtpd[15063]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> ip67-89-97-251.z97-89-67.customer.algx.net[67.89.97.251]: 554 5.7.1
> : Client
> host rej
Victor Duchovni:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:37:27PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > > The problem here is that smtpd_access_denied is misused from its original
> > > intent of reporting 503 after a client fails to heed a 554 banner. Perhaps
> > > the intended "421" disconnect on the next comma
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:10:09 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * vr :
>>
>> I have a sender from a web hosting company who is not able to send to
>> one of my users. The log entry looks like this:
>>
>> Nov 16 10:50:57 smtp postfix/smtpd[15063]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>> ip67-89-97-251.z97-89-
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:04:57PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:32:24PM +, Chris G wrote:
>
> > > It is not legal for a DNS CNAME RRset to coexist with other data for
> > > the same domain name. Nor should you have multiple CNAME records for
> > > the same domain.
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Le_invitamos_a_asistir_a_la_Presentaci=F3n_de_la_Oportunid?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ad_de_negocio_en_ACN_Marketing_y_Servicios_de_Telecomunica?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?ciones?=
Does anyone have a header_checks pcre that would allow me to reject or
discard any email with an
Chris G put forth on 11/17/2010 5:50 AM:
> That's one answer of course, thanks, for the moment I have changed my
> local DNS server so that it returns a LAN address for zbmc.eu as well as
> mws.zbmc.eu. If that causes other issues (I don't think it will) then
> I'll use the above [] syntax.
Some
On 11/17/2010 02:30 PM, Chris G wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:04:57PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
I would expect that dnsmasq is documented, and the documentation should
cover sufficient detail to help you avoid this illegal RRset combination.
You should only bother the "gurus/maintainers"
Jack put forth on 11/17/2010 11:29 AM:
> So, I'm still confused as to why it doesn't like that.
This is because you have not educated yourself as to what Classless
Inter Domain Routing notation is. To fully understand this you will be
required to convert these DECIMAL notations into BINARY notat
On 11/16/2010 10:30 PM, Grant wrote:
> 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
Le 17/11/2010 23:04, vr a écrit :
[snip]
Is there a way, maybe within a hash, to include all characters to the
left of a portion of an email address? I'm starting to see some
distribution lists using random strings of characters and I'd prefer to
stay away from authoring regular expressions, re
George Forman put forth on 11/17/2010 11:24 AM:
>
> All,
>
> We are experiencing a problem where Postfix (Using 2.6.2) continuously
> returns a 503 5.7.0 Error: access denied response.
Looks like you're also experiencing a problem with someone else gaining
access to your Hotmail account and spa
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:28:21PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Subject:
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Le_invitamos_a_asistir_a_la_Presentaci=F3n_de_la_Oportunid?=
>
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?ad_de_negocio_en_ACN_Marketing_y_Servicios_de_Telecomunica?=
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?ciones?=
>
> Does anyone have a hea
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:27:20PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I had a similar patch that I was going to post 30 mins ago when
> someone walked into my room:
OK, we are on the same page then.
> > On a somewhat related note, should the documentation explicitly warn that
> > with smtpd_delay_rej
hi all,
i am new to postfix and dovecot and this is my first ever setup.
i have a problem with address rewrite on local/lmtp when using unix
account as an alias from virtual user.
when an email from outside deliver to virtual user on local server
(t...@test.net) then it rewrite to unix_acco...@h
Victor Duchovni put forth on 11/17/2010 11:53 PM:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:28:21PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Subject:
>> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Le_invitamos_a_asistir_a_la_Presentaci=F3n_de_la_Oportunid?=
>>
>> =?iso-8859-1?Q?ad_de_negocio_en_ACN_Marketing_y_Servicios_de_Telecomunica?=
>>
45 matches
Mail list logo
