also sprach Wietse Venema [2011.02.24.1729 +0100]:
> This week I was doing some expiriments: I configured Postfix to
> make postscreen listen on both primary AND backup MX addresses.
> This was a matter of adding a second IP address to the ethernet
> interface of my mail server, then adding a back
Hi,
we are happily running several postfix installations accepting mails
from external sources and distributing them internally. To avoid
backscatter all internal destinations we don't have an LDAP connect for
are checked using address verification.
Until recently we ran version 2.7.1 and di
Hi all
I want to send mails to all users I have in my database and I am using
postfix-2.3.3-2.3.el5_6. I am afraid that ISPs consider me spammer and add
me to black list.Any one can suggest to me where to start to send mass mails
and how to be protected from being considered spammer at ISP
Reg
* Amira Othman :
> Hi all
>
> I want to send mails to all users I have in my database and I am using
> postfix-2.3.3-2.3.el5_6. I am afraid that ISPs consider me spammer and add
> me to black list.Any one can suggest to me where to start to send mass mails
> and how to be protected from being cons
Use DKIM, domainkeys, a perfect emailer like pearmail or swiftmailer,
control the rate limit, use proper SPF, fill bulk mailer forms with all
major ISPs. Get FBL subscription from all ISP's except Gmail, and very
strictly remove them from your list.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Amira Othman w
On 8/9/2011 9:03 AM, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we are happily running several postfix installations accepting mails
> from external sources and distributing them internally. To avoid
> backscatter all internal destinations we don't have an LDAP connect
> for are checked using address verif
your postfix might complain about the number or recipients
see smtpd_recipient_limit default_destination_recipient_limit and such
if you run into this
regards
claus
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 04:46:13PM -0700, Christopher Adams wrote:
> [snip]
>> readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.0.16/README_FILES
>
> If this is really 2.0.16, you should consider upgrading! Postfix 2.4
> has been EOL'ed as of March. 2.
Check with your ISP, make sure spf and domain keys are up to date, and install
a mailing list manager like Mailman.
-Dennis Carr
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Amira Othman wrote:
Hi all
I want to send mails to all users I have in my database and I am
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Atkins wrote:
> My main goal is to figure out what I should have in each section of
> main.cf (smptd/client restrictions to help stop spam and not to be a open
> relay or back scatter host.
You won't be successful in stopping spam with any kind of "set it a
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt
wrote:
> * Amira Othman :
>> Hi all
>>
>> I want to send mails to all users I have in my database and I am using
>> postfix-2.3.3-2.3.el5_6. I am afraid that ISPs consider me spammer and add
>> me to black list.Any one can suggest to me where to st
>almost half a year after the above message introducing postscreen
>and the idea of using a low-priority MX on the same host to raise
>the entry barrier for the postscreen whitelist, I would like to ping
>back to the thread with the following question:
>Has anyone found out how to make this work
All,
I apologize in advance for this Postmaster 101 question.
Am I correct in understanding that every mail server that is 1) attempting
to deliver e-mail to an invalid address on my server and 2) is from=<>, and
3) the message did not originate on my server is improperly configured?
IOW, if eve
Yes, I do realize the more added to postscreen, the slower it gets, etc.
However, one function that would seem to fit perfectly if it's not too slow
would be spf and dkim checks. SPF we are doing via a milter, and, seems to be
fast. Yes, it's DNS records, but, postscreen already does much worse
Hi!
I'm running postfix on a VPS with two IP addresses. Each IP address is used
for a different service and I don't want those to be linked.
Everything would be running smooth IF it wasn't for the SMTP banner. Which
promptly gives away that seconddomain.com is using the same server as
firstdomai
* Peter Blair :
> > Your ISP would be a start.
>
> +1
>
> In all seriousness, don't do this yourself.
Indeed. If one has to ask, one is not in the position to do this
oneself. No offense intended.
> Engage an ESP like mailchimp etc. What you're describing sounds
> terribly spammy. A good/rep
On 09/08/2011 19:18, Gary Chambers wrote:
All,
I apologize in advance for this Postmaster 101 question.
Am I correct in understanding that every mail server that is 1) attempting
to deliver e-mail to an invalid address on my server and 2) is from=<>, and
3) the message did not originate on my s
martin f krafft:
> also sprach Wietse Venema [2011.02.24.1729 +0100]:
> > This week I was doing some expiriments: I configured Postfix to
> > make postscreen listen on both primary AND backup MX addresses.
> > This was a matter of adding a second IP address to the ethernet
> > interface of my mail
Steve Fatula:
> Yes, I do realize the more added to postscreen, the slower it gets,
> etc. However, one function that would seem to fit perfectly if
> it's not too slow would be spf and dkim checks. SPF we are doing
Postscreen by design NEVER SEES THE ENVELOPE OR CONTENT of email
that is received
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Steve Fatula
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 11:12 AM
> To: Postfix Users
> Subject: Postscreen, SPF and DKIM?
>
> However, it is good practice to reject mail that fails s
> Postfix architecture aside, I think this is bad advice, at least about DKIM.
> The premises are false.
Care to elaborate? Clearly, this is not possible to do in postscreen sort of
making this moot, but, SPF spec says to reject messages that have status fail.
DKIM says you MAY, and, several
On 8/9/2011 2:01 PM, ricardus1867 wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm running postfix on a VPS with two IP addresses. Each IP address is used
> for a different service and I don't want those to be linked.
>
> Everything would be running smooth IF it wasn't for the SMTP banner. Which
> promptly gives away tha
On 8/9/2011 1:18 PM, Gary Chambers wrote:
> All,
>
> I apologize in advance for this Postmaster 101 question.
>
> Am I correct in understanding that every mail server that is 1)
> attempting
> to deliver e-mail to an invalid address on my server and 2) is
> from=<>, and
> 3) the message did not o
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Fatula [mailto:compconsult...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:15 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; Postfix Users
> Subject: Re: Postscreen, SPF and DKIM?
>
> Care to elaborate? Clearly, this is not possible to do in postscreen
> sort of making t
On 8/9/2011 2:41 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
[snip discussion of minimizing deep protocol test delays]
What do you think about an option to skip the "after 220" tests
based on dnswl results?
If an IP is listed on a dnswl, it's quite likely a real mail server
and would pass all the disruptive tests
Zitat von Amira Othman :
Hi all
I want to send mails to all users I have in my database and I am using
postfix-2.3.3-2.3.el5_6. I am afraid that ISPs consider me spammer and add
me to black list.Any one can suggest to me where to start to send mass mails
and how to be protected from being consi
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 03:54:55PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 2:41 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> [snip discussion of minimizing deep protocol test delays]
>
>
> What do you think about an option to skip the "after 220"
> tests based on dnswl results?
>
> If an IP is listed on a dnswl, i
On 8/9/2011 4:49 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 03:54:55PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>> I suppose we could overload the postscreen_dnsbl_threshold
>> parameter for this, something like
>> postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = reject-boundary;pass-boundary
>> where reject-boundary is required
Wietse Venema:
> Steve Fatula:
> > Yes, I do realize the more added to postscreen, the slower it gets,
> > etc. However, one function that would seem to fit perfectly if
> > it's not too slow would be spf and dkim checks. SPF we are doing
>
> Postscreen by design NEVER SEES THE ENVELOPE OR CONTENT
also sprach Wietse Venema [2011.08.09.2141 +0200]:
> > Has anyone found out how to make this work in combination with
> > a physically-separate secondary MX?
>
> At this time, Postfix supports no suitable database type that can
> be shared AND provide the performance level (milliseconds latency)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/9/2011 6:02 PM, martin f krafft wrote:
> I was wondering more about the prioritisation of 3–4 MX records,
> two for the primary and possibly only one for the secondary,
> e.g.
>
> 10 primary-0.mx 20 secondary.mx 30 primary-1.mx
>
> In this scena
Hi!
By trying to add a second postfix instance (something seems to have went
terribly wrong), I managed to screw up my postfix. Badly. Nothing would work
anymore. So I tried the scorched earth approach (purge, then install).
That worked more or less, except for the fact that /var/spool/postfix/e
Just as I feared. I wan't worried about the resources, I just didn't wanna
risk wrecking my postfix. I'm good at this...
Well, I took the risk and wrecking the postfix I did (follow-up:
http://old.nabble.com/Problem-with-DNS-lookup-when-chrooted-td32231386.html).
Will try again when I get it fixe
Using Postfix 2.8.4, I have the following options to smtpd:
-o content_filter=dspam:unix:/var/dspam/dspam.sock -o
smtpd_milters=unix:/var/run/clamav/clamav-milter.sock,unix:/var/run/opendkim/opendkim.sock,unix:/usr/local/var/milter-greylist/milter-greylist.sock
Reading the postfix doc, it says
34 matches
Mail list logo
