Hi ,
I know there is an overall limit on number of addresses controlled by
smtpd_recipient_limit., however do we have a max value for number of To, Cc
and Bcc fields separately ?
Regards,
Punit
punit jain:
> Hi ,
>
> I know there is an overall limit on number of addresses controlled by
> smtpd_recipient_limit., however do we have a max value for number of To, Cc
> and Bcc fields separately ?
The SMTP protocol sends recipients with RCPT TO commands.
The SMTP protocol does not care what r
jason hirsh:
> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS val 2972295960 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
So, you are receiving connection attempts from a Google system
mail-iy0-f182.goog
On May 16, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> jason hirsh:
>> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
>> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
>> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS val 2972295960 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
>
> So, you are receivin
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:29:10AM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
> On May 16, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > jason hirsh:
> >> 08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
> >> tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 850119283, win 5720,
> >> options [mss 1430,sackOK,TS v
jason hirsh:
> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 209.255.255.255
Well that explains everything. With this, your machine believes
that all IP addresses in 209.* are on the local subnet.
> > If the netmask is mis-configured (say, 0xff00) then that explains
> > why we see no respo
On May 16, 2011, at 10:47 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:29:10AM -0400, jason hirsh wrote:
>> On May 16, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> jason hirsh:
08:40:31.036997 IP mail-iy0-f182.google.com.51101 >
tuna.theoceanwindow-bv.com.smtp: Flags [S], seq 85011
On May 16, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> jason hirsh:
>> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 209.255.255.255
>
> Well that explains everything. With this, your machine believes
> that all IP addresses in 209.* are on the local subnet.
>
>>> If the netmask is mis-configu
jason hirsh:
> >>> What is the output of
> >>>
> >>> ifconfig -a | grep 209.160
> >>
> >> inet 209.160.65.133 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 209.160.71.255
> >>
> >> (this is the IP handling mail services)
> >>
> >> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 209.255.255.255
> >>>
> >>
Wietse Venema:
> jason hirsh:
> > >>> What is the output of
> > >>>
> > >>> ifconfig -a | grep 209.160
> > >>
> > >> inet 209.160.65.133 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 209.160.71.255
> > >>
> > >> (this is the IP handling mail services)
> > >>
> > >> inet 209.160.68.112 netmask 0xff0
On May 16, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> jason hirsh:
>> What is the output of
>>
>> ifconfig -a | grep 209.160
>
> inet 209.160.65.133 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 209.160.71.255
>
> (this is the IP handling mail services)
>
>>
On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:14:03 -0400
jason hirsh articulated:
> I was unable to get this quality of advice from the Freebsd forum
Not surprising. The FreeBSD group is more concerned with bumping version
numbers and blaming Microsoft and hardware manufacturers for their
problems than in actually do
Am 16.05.2011 18:22, schrieb Jerry:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:14:03 -0400
> jason hirsh articulated:
>
>> I was unable to get this quality of advice from the Freebsd forum
>
> Not surprising. The FreeBSD group is more concerned with bumping version
> numbers and blaming Microsoft and hardware ma
Hi,
Long time qmail user now migrating to Postfix (old guy who doesn't like
change J ). I have my Postfix server set up to the point where it is
sending and receiving mail properly but I'm wondering if there is a
configuration setting where I change how mail is stored on the machine.
I'm using
On 5/16/2011 1:23 PM, John Nichel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Long time qmail user now migrating to Postfix (old guy who doesn’t
> like change J ). I have my Postfix server set up to the point where it
> is sending and receiving mail properly but I’m wondering if there is a
> configuration setting where I c
John Nichel:
> I could configure Dovecot to look for the mail where Postfix is storing
> it, but I'd rather (if possible) change Postfix to fit what Dovecot is
> looking for (personal preference, as I'd rather not have an '@' in the
> directory name). Is this possible?
Edit these:
> virtual_mail
Am 16.05.2011 19:23, schrieb John Nichel:
> Hi,
>
> Long time qmail user now migrating to Postfix (old guy who doesn’t like
> change J ). I have my Postfix server set
> up to the point where it is sending and receiving mail properly but I’m
> wondering if there is a configuration
> setting wh
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:23:52PM -0400, John Nichel wrote:
> Long time qmail user now migrating to Postfix (old guy who doesn't like
> change J ). I have my Postfix server set up to the point where it is
> sending and receiving mail properly but I'm wondering if there is a
> configuration setti
Hi,
a short question about the parameter "permit_naked_ip_address":
As a client may use his IP for the HELO command ( look at the recent RFC's ),
and the usage of permit_naked_ip_address DOES NOT turn the postfix into an open
relay,
which way we should use permit_my_networks to allow IP's in
Am 16.05.2011 19:38, schrieb Thomas Berger:
> As a client may use his IP for the HELO command (look at the recent RFC's)
the RFC's are nice but in this days everybody who maintains a mailserver
has to look that HELO is a vild hostname which resolves in both directions
or has not to wonder if his
> the RFC's are nice but in this days everybody who maintains a mailserver
> has to look that HELO is a vild hostname which resolves in both directions
> or has not to wonder if his mails are dropped!
>
> not all things that are not explicit forbidden are well behavior!
That's right, but does not
Le 16/05/2011 19:38, Thomas Berger a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> a short question about the parameter "permit_naked_ip_address":
>
> As a client may use his IP for the HELO command ( look at the recent RFC's ),
which recent RFC's?
RC 5321 (section 4.1.1.1) says:
Syntax:
ehlo = "EHLO"
Thomas Berger:
> Hi,
>
> a short question about the parameter "permit_naked_ip_address":
>
> As a client may use his IP for the HELO command ( look at the
> recent RFC's ),
The RFCs I know require the address inside [].
> and the usage of permit_naked_ip_address DOES NOT
> turn the postfix in
> what problem are you trying to solve?
> the default config doesn't reject naked IPs in helo.
I descriped the reason why we have to accept such naked ips in my last mail.
To the background:
The inbound mailsystem for one of our customers was on heavy load around the
clock. So we set helo_ and c
> On 5/16/2011 1:23 PM, John Nichel wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Long time qmail user now migrating to Postfix (old guy who doesn't
> > like change J ). I have my Postfix server set up to the point where
> it
> > is sending and receiving mail properly but I'm wondering if there is
> a
> > configurati
Thomas Berger:
> And by the way: a permit_naked_ip_address in helo restrictions
> would only lead to an open relay, if the sender_restrictions are
> garbage, and this way, we will get an open relay anyway.
> We have tested this with a few different postfix versions today.
I am more concerned with
Am 16.05.2011 20:07, schrieb Thomas Berger:
> accept the whole dynamic ip range, as that would be a security risk
if they want to dilver mails they have to get an static-ip
it does not matter if this is a customer
if a customer forces me to accept something weird from dynamic IP's he
will no l
On 5/16/2011 9:47 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> If the netmask is mis-configured (say, 0xff00) then that explains
>>> why we see no responses to connection attempts from 209.85.210.182
>>> (and other 209.* IP addresses).
>
> Wietse's amazing crystal ball strikes again! :)
Well, ya know, one just
On 5/16/2011 10:38 AM, jason hirsh wrote:
> I have a lot more to learn
Nah, you've just spent too much time under water breathing through a
tube. Eats away at the brain ya know. You demonstrated this when you
contemplated switching to Sendmail to solve this problem.
;)
--
Stan
On May 16, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 10:38 AM, jason hirsh wrote:
>
>> I have a lot more to learn
>
> Nah, you've just spent too much time under water breathing through a
> tube. Eats away at the brain ya know. You demonstrated this when you
> contemplated switchin
Jason,
I am glad your problem was solved. Also, I hope this thread taught you
a valuable lesson: instead of spreading misinformation and questioning
the 'quality' of free advice, you could focus your efforts on the very
basics of system administration. You may also benefit from a review of
the f
I only get the digest version, but thanks gents for the help on thisgood to
know that it's not my setup :)
James
From: James Lay
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 07:45:04 -0600
To: Postfix Users
Subject: Postfix doesn't seem to always resolve
Hey all.
Topic says iton connect sometimes postfix doe
Given:
1. a mail server configured to offer the common services; said
server requires authentication and port 587 to send for the regular
subscriber
2. said server also runs squirrelmail
3. miscreants have guessed weak passwords and sent enough spam via
squirrelmail to cause the server to be l
Is your mail server running Postfix? If not, you're probably not
going to find very much useful information from this list.
You should obviously identify which users have weak passwords and
make them change their passwords ASAP.
Rich Wales
ri...@richw.org
On 5/16/2011 7:10 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I am glad your problem was solved. Also, I hope this thread taught you
> a valuable lesson: instead of spreading misinformation and questioning
> the 'quality' of free advice, you could focus your efforts on the very
> basics of system admini
35 matches
Mail list logo
