On 26/1/2012 1:09 πμ, Charles Marcus wrote:
However, we could formulate gwservers.cidr as (for example):
>
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx OK
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx OK
> 127.0.0.1 OK
> :::::: OK
> :::::OK
> ::1
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:17 -0500 (EST), Wietse Venema
wrote:
> Mark Alan:
> > > > Would the following be an acceptable way to do it?
> > > > postconf -e 'postscreen_access_list = reject'
> > > > postconf -e 'soft_bounce = yes'
> > >
> > > Only if this is documented. The soft_bounce paramete
On 1/30/2012 9:10 AM, Eric Chandler wrote:
>> The above simple example catches *EVERYTHING* and is suitable to be
> used in a lab or test setting. This is consistent with the initial
> request as I understand it.
>
>> If the request was incomplete, it should be clarified.
>
> Yes, I want to catc
On 1/31/2012 1:44 AM, James Day wrote:
>
> The only question that remains for me is, what is the difference between
> PLAIN and LOGIN mechanisms? I understand from
> http://wiki.dovecot.org/Authentication/Mechanisms that they are both plain
> text. Unfortunately google searches for login authe
>
> The only question that remains for me is, what is the difference between
> PLAIN and LOGIN mechanisms? I understand from
> http://wiki.dovecot.org/Authentication/Mechanisms that they are both plain
> text. Unfortunately google searches for login authentication aren't
> particularly helpful
On 1/31/2012 4:36 AM, Mark Alan wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:17 -0500 (EST), Wietse Venema
> wrote:
>> Mark Alan:
> Would the following be an acceptable way to do it?
> postconf -e 'postscreen_access_list = reject'
> postconf -e 'soft_bounce = yes'
Only if this is d
Mark Alan:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:17 -0500 (EST), Wietse Venema
> wrote:
> > Mark Alan:
> > > > > Would the following be an acceptable way to do it?
> > > > > postconf -e 'postscreen_access_list = reject'
> > > > > postconf -e 'soft_bounce = yes'
> > > >
> > > > Only if this is documente
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:17:39 -0600, Noel Jones
wrote:
> You need to set both "postscreen_blacklist_action = drop" and
> "soft_bounce = yes". The soft_bounce changes the 521 hangup into a
> 421 hangup.
Thank you Noel,
If we wanted a mere 4.x.x hangup, it would be more elegant to set a
single 'm
Hi folks -
I'm new to postfix. Been working with sendmail forever but for a new
mailserver my boss (actually his boss) has a thing for postfix and against
sendmail. So I'm scrambling to learn.
One thing that has come up is that in the near future this new server will
be the MX for a particular do
On 1/31/2012 9:54 AM, Eric Jacobs wrote:
> Hi folks -
>
> I'm new to postfix. Been working with sendmail forever but for a new
> mailserver my boss (actually his boss) has a thing for postfix and
> against sendmail. So I'm scrambling to learn.
>
> One thing that has come up is that in the near fut
Good day,
I would like to know how best to archive all email relayed by a single
Postfix server. I have found the `always_bcc` option, but that loses
important information such as other BCC recipients, which I want.
I would like suggestions on more complete solution.
This server is used for semi
Mark Alan:
> It did not imagine that it would be so difficult to configure
> postscreen/postfix to achieve such a simple specification.
The hardest part of support on this mailing list is
to get a precise spec that does not conflict with itself.
Once we have that, configuration is not hard at all
On 1/31/2012 7:55 AM, Mark Alan wrote:
> The intention is to simply have postscreen immediately answer '450
> Service currently unavailable' to all connections (friend or foe) that
> are presented to it.
>
> So, ideally:
> a) postscreen must answer. It is not enough to simply drop the
> connecti
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:06:15 -0500 (EST), Wietse Venema
wrote:
> The hardest part of support on this mailing list is
> to get a precise spec that does not conflict with itself.
> Once we have that, configuration is not hard at all.
Sometimes we only know what we need when we push the email
clien
Peter Scott:
> Hello. I'm very new to Postfix configuration; I switched from Sendmail
> because I want to send mail through the Amazon Simple Email Service and
> Postfix has concurrency options that were easier to understand.
> However, they're not doing what I want and the mail is going too s
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Stan Hoeppner
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:06 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Indiscriminate maildir processing
>Eric, have you looked at Enkive? It may give you much of what you're
loo
On 30 Jan 2012, at 22:20, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
>> * Sabahattin Gucukoglu :
>>> Is it a bug or a feature that success DSNs requested for the null sender
>>> come to the postmaster?
>>
>
> Here's what happens. First, mail to the null address goes to
> MAILER-DAEMON by default:
Sabahattin Gucukoglu:
> > Postfix sends delivery notifications as mail from <>. When this
> > first-order notification fails, Postfix will attempt to deliver a
> > second-order notification to the 2bounce_notice_recipient (default:
> > postmaster) as a final attempt to avoid loss of mail.
>
> Ar
Hi list,
I've googled it but am confused by the various responses. What I'd
like seems to be pretty simple - to configure content-filter to be
bypassed if the message originates from localhost.
If anyone has a simple way to achieve this I'd appreciate the advice.
Cheers
Marc
We run a small cluster of postfix servers that are dedicated outbound
relayhosts for our customers. Beyond the outbound postfix cluster we have
another cluster of mail filtering appliances that have served their purpose
very well, but we are starting to get more compromised account due to
phishing
On 1/31/2012 8:03 PM, l...@airstreamcomm.net wrote:
> We run a small cluster of postfix servers that are dedicated outbound
> relayhosts for our customers. Beyond the outbound postfix cluster we have
> another cluster of mail filtering appliances that have served their purpose
> very well, but we
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:18:14 -0600, Noel Jones
wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 8:03 PM, l...@airstreamcomm.net wrote:
>> We run a small cluster of postfix servers that are dedicated outbound
>> relayhosts for our customers. Beyond the outbound postfix cluster we
>> have
>> another cluster of mail filtering
On 1/31/2012 8:30 PM, l...@airstreamcomm.net wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:18:14 -0600, Noel Jones
> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2012 8:03 PM, l...@airstreamcomm.net wrote:
>>> We run a small cluster of postfix servers that are dedicated outbound
>>> relayhosts for our customers. Beyond the outbound post
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 08:54:33PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 8:30 PM, l...@airstreamcomm.net wrote:
> > What we were thinking was using RBLs to dynamically block known
> > malicious IPs before allowing SMTP Auth to occur, hopefully
> > seeing a decrease in spam. Not sure if this wo
24 matches
Mail list logo
