I'm getting a return error message when I try to send an email to a
particular user:
Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.domain.com.au
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: B371FF687
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; jlmil...@mmtnetworks.com.au
Arrival-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:26:33 +0800 (WST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; kathy.
Hi community,
i have set up a windows based GFI faxserver to send and receive fax and sms
messages.
the fax and sms connectors (faxmaker.com and smsmaker.com) for this faxserver
are hostet on a other external exchange server.
fax and sms messages are sended with smtp protocol.
every time my sus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/25/2010 05:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mark Watts:
>>
>> I have a requirement to be able to monitor a postfix queue over time,
>> and to determine whether any messages are delayed due to problems
>> connecting to a remote servers.
>>
>> The mai
On 11/29/2010 03:15 PM, Schwalbe, Oliver wrote:
Hi community,
i have set up a windows based GFI faxserver to send and receive fax
and sms messages.
the fax and sms connectors (faxmaker.com and smsmaker.com) for this
faxserver are hostet on a other external exchange server.
fax and sms messages
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:53:43AM +0100, Mauro wrote:
> On 29 November 2010 01:56, Victor Duchovni
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 01:36:12PM -0700, ghe wrote:
> >
> >>> I run postfix and my mail clients use smtps so I was thinking I may as
> >>> well close port 25. How can I do that?
> >>
On 2010-11-29 Jon L Miller wrote:
> I'm getting a return error message when I try to send an email to a
> particular user:
>
> Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.domain.com.au
> X-Postfix-Queue-ID: B371FF687
> X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; jlmil...@mmtnetworks.com.au
> Arrival-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:26:33 +0
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:09:30PM +0100, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2010-11-29 Jon L Miller wrote:
> > I'm getting a return error message when I try to send an email to a
> > particular user:
Do note, we strongly prefer to see logs here.
> > Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.domain.com.au
Also note, it
Dear all,
Is it possible to configure postfix for the following scenario?
Our ERP-System wants to send emails over a dedicated account to it's users.
As it tries to send the email as the current user, using the users address,
the e-mail gets rejected by our provider (who is running Exchange).
On 11/29/2010 9:24 AM, michael.h.gr...@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Is it possible to configure postfix for the following scenario?
Our ERP-System wants to send emails over a dedicated account
to it's users. As it tries to send the email as the current
user, using the users address, the e-mai
Am 29.11.2010 16:24, schrieb michael.h.gr...@googlemail.com:
Dear all,
Is it possible to configure postfix for the following scenario?
Our ERP-System wants to send emails over a dedicated account to it's
users. As it tries to send the email as the current user, using the
users address, the e-mai
Hi,
I have a client with Postfix used as the main mail relay for a high
volume e-commerce site. All mail to outbound destinations is relayed
from sendmail processes to 2 main Postfix processes in the DMZ. Postfix
relays everything to a separate Postini server outside.
They've come to me w
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:40:13AM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if anyone
> has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability to combine the
> sender_dependent configuration with a recipient condition. Is there a
> straightforw
> > What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if
> > anyone has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability
> > to combine the sender_dependent configuration with a recipient
> > condition. Is there a straightforward way to configure this?
> > Or do I need to script a c
Le 29/11/2010 08:53, Mauro a écrit :
On 29 November 2010 01:56, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 01:36:12PM -0700, ghe wrote:
I run postfix and my mail clients use smtps so I was thinking I may as
well close port 25. How can I do that?
I'd use iptables or equivalent.
I have
Le 29/11/2010 19:22, Stirling, Scott a écrit :
What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if
anyone has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability
to combine the sender_dependent configuration with a recipient
condition. Is there a straightforward way to configure this
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:22:31PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> > This requires a second internal delivery hop.
> >
> > The first to separate out the recipients or senders that are candidates
> > for bypassing Postini into a separate queue, and the second to route
> > appropriate mail from that
Hi,
I am going to have to implement something that drops rejected mail from
one of our aliases.
The scenario is that we forward to a external server and cannot match
its spam/UCE rules so our server backskatters mail.
One way would be to drop all rejects. I think this will work because our
Zitat von Randy Ramsdell :
Hi,
I am going to have to implement something that drops rejected mail
from one of our aliases.
The scenario is that we forward to a external server and cannot
match its spam/UCE rules so our server backskatters mail.
One way would be to drop all rejects. I th
Randy Ramsdell :
> I am going to have to implement something that drops rejected mail
> from one of our aliases.
>
> The scenario is that we forward to a external server and cannot
> match its spam/UCE rules so our server backskatters mail.
If this alias is a mail distribution list, then it sh
> >>> What I have not found and am for which I am requesting help, if
> >>> anyone has a pointer or experience in this area, is the ability
> >>> to combine the sender_dependent configuration with a recipient
> >>> condition. Is there a straightforward way to configure this?
> >>> Or do I need to s
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:51:53PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> Thank you. With yours and Victor's input it sounds like I can do the
> first relay with the existing Postfix processes, configuring a
> sender_dependent relay to secondary instances of Postfix to handle
> candidates for custom rout
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Randy Ramsdell :
Hi,
I am going to have to implement something that drops rejected mail
from one of our aliases.
The scenario is that we forward to a external server and cannot match
its spam/UCE rules so our server backskatters mail.
One way would be
> > Thank you. With yours and Victor's input it sounds like I can do the
> > first relay with the existing Postfix processes, configuring a
> > sender_dependent relay to secondary instances of Postfix to handle
> > candidates for custom routing from this Sender.
> >
> > Then in the secondary Postfi
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:01:45PM -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> So to rephrase, what would be the best practices way given I have to do
> forward this email and am powerless to change the design other than our
> setup which may only include trying to mitigate backskatter?
If list expansion ha
On 2010-11-29 Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
>> Zitat von Randy Ramsdell :
>>> I am going to have to implement something that drops rejected mail
>>> from one of our aliases.
>>>
>>> The scenario is that we forward to a external server and cannot
>>> match its spam/UCE rules so
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:07:43PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> > > Thank you. With yours and Victor's input it sounds like I can do the
> > > first relay with the existing Postfix processes, configuring a
> > > sender_dependent relay to secondary instances of Postfix to handle
> > > candidates
> These are not "keywords", they are transport names. Transports are
> defined in master.cf.
Ahh, so the names are conventional, configurable. Flexible
configurability is a theme with Postfix.
> The "smtp" transport is for other people's domains, the "relay"
> transport is for your domains that a
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:01:45PM -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
So to rephrase, what would be the best practices way given I have to do
forward this email and am powerless to change the design other than our
setup which may only include trying to mitigate backskatter?
Zitat von Randy Ramsdell :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
Zitat von Randy Ramsdell :
Hi,
I am going to have to implement something that drops rejected mail
from one of our aliases.
The scenario is that we forward to a external server and cannot
match its spam/UCE rules so our server backsk
Randy Ramsdell:
> We simply alias
>
> $user $u...@$othermailserver
>
> The $users we forward to are known by our mail server and no mail will
> forward otherwise. I cannot think of a scenario which rejected mail from
> $othermailserver would be anything other than UCE in this case. The
> frin
Zitat von Randy Ramsdell :
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:01:45PM -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
So to rephrase, what would be the best practices way given I have
to do forward this email and am powerless to change the design
other than our setup which may only include try
On 11/29/2010 12:28 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
We simply alias
$user $u...@$othermailserver
The $users we forward to are known by our mail server and no mail will
forward otherwise. I cannot think of a scenario which rejected mail
from $othermailserver would be anything other than UCE in this
http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
My client has Postfix 2.3.3. Must I update to 2.6+ to run multiple
instances side-by-side? Could I manually create an instance by, e.g.,
creating an /etc/postfix-foo with main.cf and master.cf, and configure
them to use different files and director
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:39:40PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
>
> My client has Postfix 2.3.3. Must I update to 2.6+ to run multiple
> instances side-by-side?
No, but you won't have the postmulti(1) tooling at your disposal.
> Could I manua
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:39:40PM -0500, Stirling, Scott wrote:
> http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
>
> My client has Postfix 2.3.3. Must I update to 2.6+ to run multiple
> instances side-by-side? Could I manually create an instance by,
> e.g., creating an /etc/postfix-foo with
On 11/29/2010 02:39 PM, Stirling, Scott wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html
My client has Postfix 2.3.3. Must I update to 2.6+ to run multiple
instances side-by-side? Could I manually create an instance by, e.g.,
creating an /etc/postfix-foo with main.cf and master.cf, and c
Hello,
After upgrading from 2.5.x to 2.7.1 mail started queuing up to one particular
domain (TLS security level: verify) with "Server certificate not verified".
Systems still on 2.5.x versions of Postfix transmit messages to that domain via
enforced TLS just fine. Based on some testing with dif
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 02:44:31AM +, Mueller, Martin (Messaging) wrote:
> After upgrading from 2.5.x to 2.7.1 mail started queuing up to one
> particular domain (TLS security level: verify) with "Server certificate
> not verified".
Postfix TLS support has not changed noticeably since 2.5.
>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:56:08AM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> When testing with Postfix 2.7 compiled against OpenSSL 1.0.0a and also
> 1.0.0b with two patches from the upcoming 1.0.0c (due any day now)
> everything is normal. Your OpenSSL is perhaps less fortuitously selected
> than mine.
I
On Nov 28, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> My current theory is that the issue is FrontBridge specific, and is the
> result of some firewall or proxy software in front of Microsoft Exchange.
An update; I gather there are eyes on the problem.
Aloha,
Michael.
--
"Please have your Inter
40 matches
Mail list logo
