On 10/25/2011 4:57 PM, Seth Kneller wrote:
> I apologise, the reason I have posted here is that I cannot see anything
> that is wrong with my roundcube configuration. However I suspect that
> maybe it can't cope with STARTTLS?
STARTTLS is meant for "over-the-wire" security. It's unnecessary when
On 10/25/2011 5:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Probably the best solution is to uncomment the smtps wrappermode SSL
> master.cf entry, then configure roundcube to submit mail on ssl port
> 465.
Maybe I'm missing something Noel. Why have RC use auth for relay
submission when both RC and Postfix resid
On 10/25/2011 03:09 PM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
> So why it is important to return something from LDAP in order to be
> *sure* entry exists? Search without result_attribute responds with 1
> match. Why it can't be a key for descision, that there is a entry and
> let message to pass through? Thank
Hello all,
Please take a moment and point me in the right direction: I would
like to set up a greylisting solution (such as postgrey or greylist.pl)
only for one recipient (local delivery to *nix account). A link or any
pointer in the right direction would be welcomed.
Cheers,
--
Razvan
On 26/10/2011 10:29 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
On 10/25/2011 03:09 PM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
So why it is important to return something from LDAP in order to be
*sure* entry exists? Search without result_attribute responds with 1
match. Why it can't be a key for descision, that there is
Zitat von Razvan Chitu :
Hello all,
Please take a moment and point me in the right direction: I
would like to set up a greylisting solution (such as postgrey or
greylist.pl) only for one recipient (local delivery to *nix
account). A link or any pointer in the right direction would be
Hello List
My first time here so, please, point me any mistakes.
I need some special setup for my postfix server (running postfix-2.6.5 + mysql
on x86_64 kernel 2.6.31) with 11 virtual domains.
I have several users that does not need to send email offsite, so I've managed
to create accou
On 10/26/2011 11:02 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 10:29 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
> If you don't want to check users, use:
>
>relay_recipient_maps =
>
> (i.e. without any value)
>
> You may want to read this message:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/postfix-users/message/
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Simon Brereton wrote:
Hi
This is a new one on me - I've never seen spammers attempt to use to SASL Auth
to inject spam. Has anyone else seen this?
Oct 17 15:07:16 mail postfix/smtpd[14422]: connect from unknown[208.86.147.92]
Oct 17 15:07:16 mail dovecot: auth(default):
* Duane Hill :
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Simon Brereton wrote:
> >This is a new one on me - I've never seen spammers attempt to use to SASL
> >Auth to inject spam. Has anyone else seen this?
> >
> >Oct 17 15:07:16 mail postfix/smtpd[14422]: connect from
> >unknown[208.86.147.92]
> >Oct 17 15:07:16
On 26/10/2011 12:06 μμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
you miss a point. It's not about the usage of one or another postfix
config parameter. It is about postfix behavior based on LDAP protocol
search operation/results.
Sorry, I misread your initial post.
Nick
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryp
Zitat von Nerijus Kislauskas :
On 10/26/2011 11:02 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
On 26/10/2011 10:29 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
If you don't want to check users, use:
relay_recipient_maps =
(i.e. without any value)
You may want to read this message:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/postf
On 10/26/2011 4:06 AM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
> As I can see now, postfix decides, that user exists when some attribute
> (or set of attributes) is returned from a search operation. And in my
> opinion that is wrong behavior. LDAP search operation returns DN (or set
> of DN's) everytime the sea
On 10/26/2011 01:28 PM, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
> In some cases the results from a database lookup are
> needed in others not
Exactly. I should be able to get them, when I need them, and not when I
don't. It's not about problems, it's about protocols and the way they
are used.
--
Pagarbiai,
Ne
On 10/26/2011 2:19 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 5:19 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> Probably the best solution is to uncomment the smtps wrappermode SSL
>> master.cf entry, then configure roundcube to submit mail on ssl port
>> 465.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something Noel. Why have RC use a
On 10/26/2011 2:56 AM, Pa - Soscpd wrote:
>
>
> Hello List
>
>
> My first time here so, please, point me any mistakes.
>
> I need some special setup for my postfix server (running
> postfix-2.6.5 + mysql on x86_64 kernel 2.6.31) with 11 virtual domains.
>
>
> I have several users that does n
On 26.10.2011 07:58, Tobias Hachmer wrote:
On 26.10.2011 02:20, Harald Koch wrote:
On 25/10/2011 5:29 PM, Seth Kneller wrote:
I have postfix and roundcube installed on the same server, postfix
is
setup to use SASL auth and STARTTLS and I can send messages from
remote clients. However I cannot
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> relay=mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200]:25, delay=6.4, delays=0.27/0.01/6.1/0,
> dsn=5.5.0, status=bounced (Protocol error: host
> mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200] refused to talk to me: 220-mail.charite.de
> ESMTP 421-4.3.2 All server ports are busy 421 4.3.2
This is fixed in p
* Wietse Venema :
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > relay=mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200]:25, delay=6.4,
> > delays=0.27/0.01/6.1/0, dsn=5.5.0, status=bounced (Protocol error: host
> > mail.charite.de[141.42.202.200] refused to talk to me: 220-mail.charite.de
> > ESMTP 421-4.3.2 All server ports are busy 4
On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
> an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
> requirement is that a result must be returned, but the value is not
> used. As long as a lookup returns anything, the user
Hi
I finally got around to implementing SPF for my mail server and domains. A lot
easier than I thought it would be, certainly much easier than DKIM and I'm
ashamed I didn't do it earlier.
In the course of doing that, I noticed that gmail/yahoo both add X-Headers
about the validity of the SPF
On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
...
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with
policyd? And if not, and I must install postfix-policyd-spf-python
or postfix-policyd-spf-perl which do you r
Nerijus Kislauskas:
> On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
> > an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
> > requirement is that a result must be returned, but the value is not
> > used. As long as a loo
On 10/26/2011 8:56 AM, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
>> an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
>> requirement is that a result must be returned, but the value is not
>
On 26 October 2011 10:27, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
> ...
>>
>> So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
>> add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with
>> policyd? And if not, and I must install postf
On 10/26/2011 10:44 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
On 26 October 2011 10:27, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
...
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with
policyd? A
Hello -
We are in need of an hourly resource to ask questions & get configuration help
for postfix from time to time.
Email me privately if you're interested: d...@danrichman.com
Thanks -
Update: Found someone. That was fast.
Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 04:56:40PM +0300, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 02:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > The postfix database interface is a general-purpose mechanism, not
> > an LDAP interface. In the case of relay_recipient_maps, the
> > requirement is that a result must be returned,
On 10/26/2011 08:11 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The LDAP table driver considers entries that match the query filter,
> but which lack the requested attributes, or have only empty values
> for the requested attributes to not be matching attributes. The Postfix
> dictionary abstraction above the Pos
On 2011-10-26 01:37, Jack Fredrikson wrote:
**Hey, everybody: thanks so much for trying to help. I really
appreciate it. But I've killed a week and before I kill myself, I'm
throwing in the towel until I build that new ser
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity add a
header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with policyd? And if
not, and I must install postfix-policyd-spf-python or postfix-policyd-spf-perl
which do you recommend and why?
>
>Can't help you with Amavis,
Nerijus Kislauskas:
> On 10/26/2011 08:11 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > The LDAP table driver considers entries that match the query filter,
> > but which lack the requested attributes, or have only empty values
> > for the requested attributes to not be matching attributes. The Postfix
> > dictio
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:17:17PM +0300, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 08:11 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > The LDAP table driver considers entries that match the query filter,
> > but which lack the requested attributes, or have only empty values
> > for the requested attributes to no
Em 26/10/2011 09:23, Noel Jones escreveu:
On 10/26/2011 2:56 AM, Pa - Soscpd wrote:
Hello List
My first time here so, please, point me any mistakes.
I need some special setup for my postfix server (running
postfix-2.6.5 + mysql on x86_64 kernel 2.6.31) with 11 virtual domains.
I have sever
Hi,
I'm trying to achieve the following:
Stop spammers (obviously)
Permit relaying when I'm outside the network (using SASL)
After reading through postconf, to prevent duplicate checks I removed
a number of checks from smtpd_sender_restrictions, so that it now
looks like this:
smtpd_sender_rest
On 10/26/2011 11:06 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Lose the attitude or go away. You're new here, it rather presumptuous
> to start lecturing people who've been here for 10+ years.
Then I will hit myself in the cheek.
> The Postfix LDAP driver does not know
> whether the result is wanted or not
T
On Wednesday 26 October 2011 16:28:43 IT geek 31 wrote:
> I'm trying to achieve the following:
>
> Stop spammers (obviously)
> Permit relaying when I'm outside the network (using SASL)
>
> After reading through postconf, to prevent duplicate checks I
> removed a number of checks from smtpd_sender
I'm slowly switching all my UNIX needs over to Macports packages, from Mac OS X
Server's Admin console. This means learning a few new things, such as mail in
general, and Postfix in particular.
Now, I've found lots of tutorials on Postfix that cover a range of topics,
seemingly for moderate-to-
Hi Rob
Thanks for your reply - that's certainly cleared a few things up!
>> check_recipient_access hash:/usr/pkg/etc/postfix/access,
>
> "access" is a bad name for this. Since you're checking recipient
> addresses, I would suggest a name of "rcpt_access", or similar.
I've renamed this to sender_
Ren? Fournier:
> I'm slowly switching all my UNIX needs over to Macports packages,
> from Mac OS X Server's Admin console. This means learning a few
> new things, such as mail in general, and Postfix in particular.
>
> Now, I've found lots of tutorials on Postfix that cover a range
> of topics, see
--On October 26, 2011 6:08:56 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:14:39PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Ok, logs were still on the server I was using earlier. Here's part
of one of the connections in question.
LDAP server logs are no way to report a suspected
--On October 26, 2011 4:45:01 PM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
I'm using simple binds as I have since postfix 2.3. I actually was not
aware the code for using SASL mechanism binds had been added to postfix.
Very happy to know that. ;) I have my own test server set up now so I
can bette
On 2011-10-26, at 5:41 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> With high enough volume it may be more productive to hire a
> professional email service provider (ESP). I'm not in that business.
For a variety of reasons, this isn't an option for us.
>> Any suggestions where to start? I suppose there's a bi
On Wednesday 26 October 2011 18:09:56 René Fournier wrote:
> Now, I've found lots of tutorials on Postfix that cover a range of
> topics, seemingly for moderate-to-complex needs. Mine are pretty
> simple. I have a server that simply needs to send out notification
> emails on a regular, high-volume
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:42:54PM -0600, Ren? Fournier wrote:
> > High-volume email is not covered in Postfix documentation as the
> > requirements are complex and subject to change.
>
> Well, high volume is maybe overstating it. I would guess a few
> hundred outgoing emails a day, mostly to di
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:10:41PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >I'm using simple binds as I have since postfix 2.3. I actually was not
> >aware the code for using SASL mechanism binds had been added to postfix.
> >Very happy to know that. ;) I have my own test server set up now so I
> >c
--On October 27, 2011 4:14:12 AM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
Therefore, I propose the following Postfix fix/work-around which
is required for anyone running Postfix 2.3 or later, linked with
OpenLDAP 2.4 or later (perhaps even late 2.3.x releases, I just
compared OpenLDAP 2.3.4 with 2.4.23
On 27/10/2011 12:59 πμ, Nerijus Kislauskas wrote:
(a) group needs "read" permission on result_attribute attributes, while
(b) group needs only "search" permission. What I want from all ot this,
that postfix would be able to work with minimal required ldap access
permissions. And now you require
Well, I checked, I was off a bit. About 10,000 per day. Still low though it
seems.
On 2011-10-26, at 9:40 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:42:54PM -0600, Ren? Fournier wrote:
>
>>> High-volume email is not covered in Postfix documentation as the
>>> requirements are compl
On 2011-10-27 01:35, IT geek 31 wrote:
I guess what I'm after is a way to whitelist certain senders. ie. if
they're okay, then no further processing is needed - just deliver. Is
this possible? If so, presumably smtpd_sender_restrictions =
check_sender_access hash:/sender_access is the place to
51 matches
Mail list logo
