On 09/12/2011 14:51, Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/9/2011 5:05 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
Looks OK. What's not working as expected?
-- Noel Jones
Hi Noel
Apologies for the extremely late response.
The mail appears to be send to /dev/null instead of being held in the queue.
thanks
Tom
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 20:19:38 Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 21.12.2011 01:29, schrieb Peter:
> > On 21/12/11 13:21, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> so why does he not use the reply-button and what is he thinking
> >> does "nore...@mail.tld" mean? if you do not read the
> >> noreply-address it is the s
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 22:07:04 Bartłomiej Romański wrote:
> Is there a way to restrict the "From" field for messages sent with
> the command line tool "mail"?
>
> For messages sent with SMTP we can simply do this:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#server_sasl_authz_envelope
Note,
On 12/20/2011 9:19 PM, Peter wrote:
> In the case of SPAM the best solution is to deliver the email to
> the user's SPAM folder
You must have an unlimited SAN hardware budget for your 1,000,000
mailbox site, if you practice what you preach above. Potential FPs
should be routed to a "spam" folde
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:35:14AM -0600, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > if you reject mails to "nore...@yourdomain.com" you will fail
> > sender-verify everywhere
>
> This is doable. [Most?] sender verify probes QUIT before DATA, so we
> can wait until DATA to reject.
The real solution is not misuse the
On 21.12.2011 15:56, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:35:14AM -0600, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
>>> if you reject mails to "nore...@yourdomain.com" you will fail
>>> sender-verify everywhere
>>
>> This is doable. [Most?] sender verify probes QUIT before DATA, so we
>> can wait until
On 12/21/2011 3:06 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 14:51, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 12/9/2011 5:05 AM, Tom Kinghorn wrote:
>>
>>
>> Looks OK. What's not working as expected?
>>
>>-- Noel Jones
>>
> Hi Noel
>
> Apologies for the extremely late response.
>
> The mail appears to be send t
hi
I want all the emails I receive to be sent to a script.
This script will also "swallow" all emails so no further delivery will be
necessary
(basically process them. modify some values in DB2 then wait for next email)
I understand that it is best if i use the pipe(8) or perhaps spawn(8)
command
Nezer Zaidenberg:
> hi
>
> I want all the emails I receive to be sent to a script.
> This script will also "swallow" all emails so no further delivery will be
> necessary
> (basically process them. modify some values in DB2 then wait for next email)
>
> I understand that it is best if i use the p
Hi People,
I'm trying to configure a transport map to send emails to another
server, but I got this error:
postfix-smtp/qmgr[29632]: warning: connect to transport private/smtp:
Connection refused
in my master.cf:
587 inet n - n - - smtpd
in my postconf -n
* Alfredo Saldanha :
> Hi People,
>
> I'm trying to configure a transport map to send emails to another
> server, but I got this error:
> postfix-smtp/qmgr[29632]: warning: connect to transport private/smtp:
> Connection refused
>
> in my master.cf:
> 587 inet n - n -
Hi,
I solved this problem!
I change the transport map:
from:
domain.com.brsmtp:pop.domain.com.br:25
to:
domain.com.br relay:pop.domain.com.br:25
Now it works well.
Thank you.
On 12/21/2011 06:15 PM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Alfredo Saldanha:
Hi People,
I'm trying to configure a
On 2011-12-21 04:24, Peter wrote:
On 21/12/11 15:19, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.12.2011 01:29, schrieb Peter:
On 21/12/11 13:21, Reindl Harald wrote:
so why does he not use the reply-button and what is he thinking does
"nore...@mail.tld" mean? if you do not read the noreply-address it
is the
On 22/12/11 04:56, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 9:19 PM, Peter wrote:
>
>> In the case of SPAM the best solution is to deliver the email to
>> the user's SPAM folder
>
> You must have an unlimited SAN hardware budget for your 1,000,000
> mailbox site, if you practice what you preach abov
On 22/12/11 05:07, Reindl Harald wrote:
> On 21.12.2011 15:56, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> The real solution is not misuse the "nore...@example.com" *header*
>> address as an envelope sender address.
>>
>> The envelope sender, especially for no-reply automatically generated
>> email, must be a valid
On 22/12/11 09:58, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> In postfix' case, "address verification" does not mean "use the SMTP
> VRFY command".
> It means "send a specially-crafted, actual email message and record
> whether the recipient is accepted or not."
>
> It is documented in detail here:
> http://www.post
On 12/18/11 5:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 18.12.2011 23:33, schrieb Steve Fatula:
>> Or, allow people to spoof if they wish for some "valid" reasons.
> there is no valid reason these days
> on SPF enabled domains it must not happen
> who the fuck configures smtp-servers to allow foreign send
On 12/21/2011 11:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/18/11 5:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.12.2011 23:33, schrieb Steve Fatula:
Or, allow people to spoof if they wish for some "valid" reasons.
there is no valid reason these days
on SPF enabled domains it must not happen
who the configur
Hi all,
I have a fedora15 install with postfix-2.8.7, and have a variation of
spam that I'd like to block outright using a body check. I'm trying to
figure out why one of my body checks isn't working. I have the
following in my body_checks.pcre file for the patterns I've found:
/^Click here to se
19 matches
Mail list logo
