> There are no log entries other than normal entries reflecting that
> the messages have been accepted for delivery, though per another
> posters' recommendation; I will enable debug logging and give it
> another look.
Please don't.
> Also, the content filter doesn't announce a SIZE:
>
> $ telne
Tomas Macek:
> > Postfix logs all attempts to deliver mail, whether
> > or not successful.
> >
> > Please do not turn on debug logging, it will just make
> > the problem harder to diagnose.
> >
> > You probably have a bug in the VDA patch that breaks
> > when the message size limit exceeds the mail
Just wanted to get public opinion on this one.
reject_unknown_helo_hostname
My understanding is that to be RFC compliant your HELO greeting must be a valid
hostname (ie there is a public A record).
However since implementing this restriction under smtpd_helo_restrictions I
have had nothing but
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 01:36:09PM +, James Day wrote:
> reject_unknown_helo_hostname
Not safe for most use.
> My understanding is that to be RFC compliant your HELO greeting
> must be a valid hostname (ie there is a public A record).
Right.
> However since implementing this restriction un
On 2/6/2012 7:36 AM, James Day wrote:
> Just wanted to get public opinion on this one.
>
> reject_unknown_helo_hostname
I don't use that restriction because there seem to be too many legit
hosts that fail, and not enough bad ones that do.
Don't forget you can use a restriction with warn_if_rej
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Noel Jones
Sent: 06 February 2012 14:19
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: reject unknown helo hostname
On 2/6/2012 7:36 AM, James Day wrote:
> Just wanted to get public
[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.7.8.html]
Postfix legacy releases 2.7.8, 2.6.14 and 2.5.17 are available.
This is the final update for Postfix 2.5, released in 2008. From
now on, the supported stable and legacy releases a
Hi, James. I use this here, but mine is a small server. When I see what looks
like a real message that was blocked, I usually email the postmaster of the
other system with a canned letter advising them of the issue and how to fix it.
It's usually just a line in their config that sets the helo
On 2/6/2012 6:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tomas Macek:
You probably have a bug in the VDA patch that breaks
when the message size limit exceeds the mailbox size
limit. Their code does not handle that correctly.
That seems highly plausible.
What should be a proper behaviour in this case?
T
Nick Bright:
> > The patch should not allow message size limit> mailbox size limit.
> > Unpatched Postfix forbids this, but they removed that check.
> >
>
> In this case, mailbox_size_limit shouldn't come in to play. If I'm
> reading http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#mailbox_size_limit
> c
On 2/6/2012 2:19 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Also, the content filter doesn't announce a SIZE:
You forgot to issue the EHLO command - only after this command the
filter might announce the SIZE extension.
Or rather LHLO (since mppscan seems to speak lmtp):
Oops!
$ telnet localhost 10025
Try
On 2/6/2012 2:17 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Nick Bright:
The patch should not allow message size limit> mailbox size limit.
Unpatched Postfix forbids this, but they removed that check.
I should have written: virtual_mailbox_limit.
virtual_mailbox_limit isn't defined; but I am using a
virtual
I'm using Postfix\Amavis\Spamassassin\Clamav to scan incoming emails
for
virus and spam and forward to our internal MS Exchange email
system.
Postifx shares the Internet domain with MS Exchange,
each
forwarding messages to unknown accounts to the other
system.
MS Exchange uses clustering to du
Hi!
I would answer you with another question:
In the event of a server failure, how are users directed to the other server?
I mean, there are several ways of doing that, and knowing your current
one would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Ildefonso Camargo.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Greg Wilson w
Greg Wilson:
> 2 different servers. How do I setup Postfix to
> automatically forward
> messages to one of the MS Exchange servers if
> the other one? goes
> offline?
Two options:
A) Assuming that you use the "relay" transport in master.cf
(which you should if relaying mail from outside):
/etc/p
Thanks for the advice.
I don't use relay maps for the domain as
the Internet doamin is shared betweent he MS Exchange server and the
Postfix server. i.e I use MySql address lookups onthe Postfix server so
it's easy to create addresses to forward email to different or multiple
accounts. e.g sa...
Den 2012-02-06 14:36, James Day skrev:
> My current line of
thought is to use a check_helo_access map to make exceptions on a per
server basis, is there a better way?
> write to
postmas...@senderdomain.example.org perfectly done by users that
complain :-)
I've been testing Postifx for some solutions...
One attempt
was to make 2 entries with the same host name in /etc/hosts
e.g
10.222.100.1 exchange.mydomain.local exchange
10.333.200.2
exchange.mydomain.local exchange
Then changed the transport map
to
mydomain.local smtp:[exchange.mydomain.
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 11:42:37AM +1100, Greg Wilson wrote:
> I use this
> technique, DNS round robin to evenly spread rdp connections to our
> terminal servers. My understanding is that a device does a DNS lookup and
> the server hands out each different IP address sequentially. Each device
> use
19 matches
Mail list logo
