IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Pim Zandbergen
I cannot send mail to ISP nines.nl nor to their customers. Nines.nl have three MX hosts: two at weight 100, with IPv4 and IPv6 addresses one at weight 500, IPv4 only Their primary MX hosts defer all mail sent to their IPv6 address with "451 Your IPv6 address is not whitelisted at ipv6whitelist.

Re: IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Wietse Venema
Pim Zandbergen: > I cannot send mail to ISP nines.nl nor to their customers. > > Nines.nl have three MX hosts: > two at weight 100, with IPv4 and IPv6 addresses > one at weight 500, IPv4 only > > Their primary MX hosts defer all mail sent to their IPv6 address > with "451 Your IPv6 address is no

Re: IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Pim Zandbergen
Wietse Venema wrote: I know of no RFC that says only whitelisted clients can send email over IPv6. Well, it's their policy. I can respect that, if their assumption that senders should fall back to IPv4 is valid. 2 - Increase smtp_mx_session_limit (default: 2) so that Postfix will knock

Re: IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Wietse Venema
Pim Zandbergen: > Wietse Venema wrote: > > I know of no RFC that says only whitelisted clients can send email > > over IPv6. > > Well, it's their policy. I can respect that, if their assumption that > senders should fall back to IPv4 is valid. This policy is mistaken for the following reasons.

Re: IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Pim Zandbergen
Wietse Venema wrote: This policy is mistaken for the following reasons. Doesn't that make the whole ipv6whitelist.eu initiave "mistaken"? Or could there be a correct way to use it? As a side note: they do explain how to enable their whitelisting in Postfix: http://www.ipv6whitelist.eu/implement

Re: [OT] IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Brian Evans - Postfix List
On 8/17/2011 1:47 PM, Pim Zandbergen wrote: > Wietse Venema wrote: >> This policy is mistaken for the following reasons. > Doesn't that make the whole ipv6whitelist.eu initiave "mistaken"? > Or could there be a correct way to use it? > > As a side note: they do explain how to enable their whitelist

Re: IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Wietse Venema
Pim Zandbergen: > Wietse Venema wrote: > > This policy is mistaken for the following reasons. > Doesn't that make the whole ipv6whitelist.eu initiave "mistaken"? > Or could there be a correct way to use it? This approach is incompatible with 100% RFC-compliant MTAs, and is therefore broken by desi

Re: IPv6, backup MX and 4XX deferrals

2011-08-17 Thread Patrick Ben Koetter
* Wietse Venema : > It's not spammers that destroy the infrastructure, it's the > well-meaning people with their broken solutions. +1 p@rick -- All technical questions asked privately will be automatically answered on the list and archived for public access unless privacy is explicitely requir

Remove header on reinjection

2011-08-17 Thread Steve Fatula
Sounded easy (and probably is), but, don't see it. I know I can add header_checks and have a rule in it to ignore a header, which is what I want to do. Specifically, the header that is added by reinjection after an after queue content filter that shows received from localhost. header_checks is

Re: Remove header on reinjection

2011-08-17 Thread Steve Fatula
- Original Message - > From: Steve Fatula > To: Postfix Users > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:18 PM > Subject: Remove header on reinjection > > Sounded easy (and probably is), but, don't see it. I know I can add > header_checks and have a rule in it to ignore a header, whic

Re: Transport Connection Limiting

2011-08-17 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:39:18AM +0100, Dan S wrote: > Hello, > > Wonder if someone can point me in the right direction. > > We hold transport routes for loads of destinations and sometimes encounter > an issue if one particular domain/route suddenly gets a hugh influx of mail. > > Say for in