On 31/03/2011 18:39, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:15:55AM +0200, Ultrabug wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I'm facing a problem where I have to adapt and optimize my smtp servers
>> to a host's constraints which are as follow :
>>
>> - maximum 3 connections to each MX of the hos
On 2011-03-31 21:16:16 +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> HELO checks are the primary defense against backscatter of this sort; I use
> a simple subset of the available options:
>
> smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
> reject_unknown_helo_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Vincent Lefevre
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:47 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: SMTP client host name spoofing
>
> I really think it is a bad idea to
Am 01.04.2011 09:47, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>> Where helo_access contains my own IPs and hostnames.
>>
>> This setup will reject an AMAZING amount of spam.
>> Fair warning: it may also yield the occasional false positive due to a
>> misconfigured client mail system!
>> The usual warn_if_reject wi
On 2011-04-01 01:01:34 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Those machines should be talking to a public-facing MTA that
> tolerates unqualified names; they shouldn't be talking to the public
> Internet with an unqualified name.
The main smarthost of my ISP gets blacklisted by some lists each time
Am 01.04.2011 11:15, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> I could now use SASL (this wasn't possible in the past because I didn't
> have my own server), but there would still be problems to solve: how
> can I use a fallback (on the client side) to the direct method when for
> some reason, the server is not
Hi,
is it possible to create rule or script in postfix that one user can't send
email totaly more than a 100 emails ? expect sending a group ?
we have
destination_recipts setting 50 but , every time an user send 50 mail. I
wantto restrict total mail of user. or some script about control this 50
r
Am 01.04.2011 12:17, schrieb Selcuk Yazar:
> Hi,
>
> is it possible to create rule or script in postfix that one user can't
> send email totaly more than a 100 emails ? expect sending a group ?
> we have
>
> destination_recipts setting 50 but , every time an user send 50 mail. I
> wantto restri
Instead of using AD Global Catalog (port 3268) can be used, this somehow
helped.
search_base must be empty
resulting map file looks:
server_host = 10.100.5.1:3268
search_base =
bind = yes
bind_dn = CN=mailgw,OU=SYS,DC=,DC=lan
bind_pw = password
scope = sub
result_attribute = mail
result_forma
LinkedIn
Martín Marqués requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
--
James,
Me gustaría añadirte a mi red profesional en LinkedIn.
-Martín
Accept invitation from Martín Marqués
http://www.linkedin.com/e/ekybff-glz3zu1c-5y/qB3B5040SVrp
On Friday 01 April 2011 02:23:08 Wietse Venema wrote:
> I suppose it is a script with a config file with patterns for "known"
> logfile messages.
The script itself contains the patterns.
It reads the logfile line by line and checks for the patterns. So basically
it's something like that:
while
On 2011-04-01 11:31:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 01.04.2011 11:15, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>
> > I could now use SASL (this wasn't possible in the past because I didn't
> > have my own server), but there would still be problems to solve: how
> > can I use a fallback (on the client side)
Am 01.04.2011 17:07, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> Perhaps in your case, but when sending mail directly (i.e. without
> using SASL), I get a reject only once every few weeks. So, yes,
> there is a reason for a fallback to direct SMTP to the destination.
if you send mail directly you have to make
su
On 2011-04-01 17:15:41 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 01.04.2011 17:07, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> > Perhaps in your case, but when sending mail directly (i.e. without
> > using SASL), I get a reject only once every few weeks. So, yes,
> > there is a reason for a fallback to direct SMTP to the de
Am 01.04.2011 17:32, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> On 2011-04-01 17:15:41 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 01.04.2011 17:07, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>>> Perhaps in your case, but when sending mail directly (i.e. without
>>> using SASL), I get a reject only once every few weeks. So, yes,
>>> there
I'm trying to find a way to block/reject inbound messages forging our
internal email addresses. Meaning their inbound messages using MY email
address but there not originating from my server.
I cannot seem to find the correct solution. Anyone.
Vernon
On 2011-04-01 11:22:04 (-0500), Vernon A. Fort
wrote:
> I'm trying to find a way to block/reject inbound messages forging our
> internal email addresses. Meaning their inbound messages using MY email
> address but there not originating from my server.
>
> I cannot seem to find the correct solut
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 09:20:39AM +0200, Ultrabug wrote:
> > What happens if you happen to exceed the limit on particular host
> > among the 10? If it just quickly returns a 4XX code, and does not
> > penalize future connections, ignore this limit and let Postfix do
> > what it does by default.
>
On 3/3/2011 3:09 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
I have been informed by a couple gmail users that my server
is blocking their access. They are getting
Technical details of temporary failure:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect.
Learn more athttp://mail.google.com/s
Victor Duchovni:
> > Many tanks for your time and help
>
> You probably can't do much with my advice, when the receiving system
> is fubared, your options are limited.
You'll have to use a combination of
/etc/postfix/main.cf:
slow_destination_rate_delay=x (this forces concurrency == 1)
s
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > > Many tanks for your time and help
> >
> > You probably can't do much with my advice, when the receiving system
> > is fubared, your options are limited.
>
> You'll have to use a combination of
>
> /etc/postf
On 4/1/2011 11:36 AM, Drizzt wrote:
On 2011-04-01 11:22:04 (-0500), Vernon A. Fort
wrote:
I'm trying to find a way to block/reject inbound messages forging our
internal email addresses. Meaning their inbound messages using MY email
address but there not originating from my server.
I cannot s
On 4/1/2011 12:01 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
On 3/3/2011 3:09 PM, jason hirsh wrote:
I have been informed by a couple gmail users that my
server is blocking their access. They are getting
Technical details of temporary failure:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to
connect. L
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 13:17 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 4/1/2011 11:36 AM, Drizzt wrote:
> > On 2011-04-01 11:22:04 (-0500), Vernon A.
> > Fort wrote:
> >> I'm trying to find a way to block/reject inbound messages forging our
> >> internal email addresses. Meaning their inbound messages using
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:33:15 -0500
Vernon A. Fort articulated:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 13:17 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> > On 4/1/2011 11:36 AM, Drizzt wrote:
> > > On 2011-04-01 11:22:04 (-0500), Vernon A.
> > > Fort wrote:
> > >> I'm trying to find a way to block/reject inbound messages
> > >>
On 4/1/2011 1:33 PM, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 13:17 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
On 4/1/2011 11:36 AM, Drizzt wrote:
On 2011-04-01 11:22:04 (-0500), Vernon A. Fort
wrote:
I'm trying to find a way to block/reject inbound messages forging our
internal email addresses. Meaning
On 01/04/2011 19:39, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
>>> Many tanks for your time and help
>> You probably can't do much with my advice, when the receiving system
>> is fubared, your options are limited.
> You'll have to use a combination of
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> slow_destination_
Le 01/04/2011 01:25, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> mouss put forth on 3/31/2011 4:38 PM:
>> Le 31/03/2011 17:52, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>>>
>>> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
>>> [66.117.14.32])
>>> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
>
Le 01/04/2011 09:47, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
> On 2011-03-31 21:16:16 +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>> HELO checks are the primary defense against backscatter of this sort; I use
>> a simple subset of the available options:
>>
>> smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
>> reject_un
Hi,
I have a fedora14 box that I'm trying to configure for use with
postfix with dovecot and TLS, permitting only TLS connections after
authenticating with sasl. It appears to mostly be working now, but
mail is rejected due to "not owned by user" errors.
Apr 2 01:03:53 fc14 postfix/smtpd[10284]:
30 matches
Mail list logo
