Hello
I need some feedbacks advices of experienced admins
I will have to setup in few monthes an email system
for approx 50K "intensives" users.
The only mandatory thing will be I must use HP proliant servers
The operating system will be FreeBSD or Linux
Thank you for any advices
Yes, for sure I did.
[root@fsrv02 log.d]# ll /usr/lib/sasl2/
total 52
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 957 2011-01-18 17:35 liblogin.la*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root18 2012-04-12 11:21 liblogin.so -> liblogin.so.2.0.23*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root18 2012-04-12 11:21 liblogin.so.2 ->
liblogin.so.2.0.23*
-rwx
Here it is
[root@fsrv02 log.d]# ps auxw | grep sasl
root 20425 0.0 0.0 34484 812 ?Ss 10:49 0:00 saslauthd
-a shadow
root 20426 0.0 0.0 34484 536 ?S10:49 0:00 saslauthd
-a shadow
root 20427 0.0 0.0 34484 520 ?S10:49 0:00 sasla
You may try look up ZhangHuangbin, author of iredmail.org & dbmailadmin.org,
a great postfix mail integrator. Nice guy.
For your case, see dbmail.org, a fast scalable sql based mail services.
Best regards.
Snowie
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 03:54 PM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
> Hello
>
> I need som
* Franck MAHE :
> Yes, for sure I did.
>
> [root@fsrv02 log.d]# ll /usr/lib/sasl2/
your examples use /usr/lib64/... but you post /usr/lib/...
Could it be your problem is wrong paths e.g. for the saslauthd socket?
p@rick
--
All technical questions asked privately will be automatically answere
You're right,
[root@fsrv02 log.d]# ll /usr/lib64/sasl2/
total 0
:-(
[root@fsrvpsg02 log.d]# rpm -qa | grep sasl2
lib64sasl2-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
libsasl2-plug-plain-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
libsasl2-plug-login-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
libsasl2-2.1.23-1.1mdv2010.0
So I missed the point, I just installed th
Hi,
as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
postgrey_clients.db
It's still a little unfinished but working fine on my server. There's
room for improvement though (IPv6 missing, rsyslog spawning and lastline
Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
> Hi,
>
> as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
> that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
> postgrey_clients.db
>
> It's still a little unfinished but working fine on my server. There's
> room for improve
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:50 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
> > that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
> > postgrey_clients.db
> >
> > It's still a li
Am 17.04.2012 11:50, schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
>> Hi,
>>
>> as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
>> that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
>> postgrey_clients.db
>>
>> It's still a little unfinished bu
Am 17.04.2012 12:09, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> Am 17.04.2012 11:50, schrieb Reindl Harald:
>>
>> Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little Perl script
>>> that adds the IP of the server receiving outgoing mail to
>>> post
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.04.2012 12:09, schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> > Am 17.04.2012 11:50, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> >>
> >> Am 17.04.2012 11:48, schrieb Claudius:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> as nobody seems to have a working solution I built a little P
Am 17.04.2012 12:38, schrieb Henrik K:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> how do you act with us as example?
>> you are sending a message to me to MX "barracuda.thelounge.net"
>> well, you whitelist "barracuda.thelounge.net"
>> but you will never receive any messa
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:42:16PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.04.2012 12:38, schrieb Henrik K:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:12:53PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> how do you act with us as example?
> >> you are sending a message to me to MX "barracuda.thelounge.net"
> >> well, yo
Am 17.04.2012 12:47, schrieb Henrik K:
>> the majority has outgoing and incoming on the same IP?
>> in which world are you living?
>
> Statistics speak for themselves. Come back with hard facts instead of
> your FUD.
are you really too stupid not use the term FUD
as long you are not understand
On 2012-04-17 12:04, Sam Jones wrote:
> And I would add that an inbound MX does not necessarily === the same
> outbound server a domain would use. Typically anti-spam gateways or
> hosted services used inbound on one IP, whereas outbound mail coming
> from another IP and server.
>
> Just imagine
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:54:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> the hard facts are that EVERY site using a dedicated
> spamfilter (own appliance or external service) have
> different IP's for MX and outgoing mail
So? Postpals also looks at whole /24 subnets and also can compare
sender/recipien
On 2012-04-17 12:09, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>
> what about using
> some tecs from here
> http://mailfud.org/postpals/
>
Thanks for the link, that's pretty much what I was looking for. Guess
I'll have to improve my search engine skills ;)
--
Claudius
Am 17.04.2012 13:05, schrieb Henrik K:
> Some people actually test theories before calling them nonsense. You
> haven't made a single point why there would be "non-benefits" in running
> postpals.
maybe you should have read my replies?
you are sending to the MX
you are whitelisting the MX
wond
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
> Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a domain is
> hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through greylisting in the
> end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to make it easy on them!
It's fine to imagine man
Am 17.04.2012 13:37, schrieb Henrik K:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
>> Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a domain is
>> hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through greylisting in the
>> end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to m
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:29:23PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> you are sending to the MX
> you are whitelisting the MX
> wonderful, the MX is mistly not the outgoing server
> you are receiving a spam-message
> your user has a autoreply
> with bad luck you are whitelisting the spamming server
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik
> You do realize that the "whitelisting" should only apply to direct MTA
> rbl/greylisting/ptr/etc rules? If that's your _only_ defence, then yes I
> guess you should not use postpals.
>
>> if you think it makes sense for you do it
>> but realize that others
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
> Hopefully by now people realize that your "practical expierience"
> is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with > 15.000 RCPT since years - so stop your idiotic
personal attacks while nobody attacked you until you
creep
Zitat von Reindl Harald :
Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
Hopefully by now people realize that your "practical expierience"
is questionable.
my practical expierience is managing some hundret domains
with > 15.000 RCPT since years - so stop your idiotic
personal attacks while nobody at
Am 17.04.2012 14:00, schrieb Henrik K:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
>>> Hopefully by now people realize that your "practical expierience"
>>> is questionable.
>>
>> my practical expierience is managing some hundre
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 02:06:34PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.04.2012 14:00, schrieb Henrik K:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 17.04.2012 13:43, schrieb Henrik K:
> >>> Hopefully by now people realize that your "practical expierien
Hey!
I finally installed a postfix mail server this past weekend. Pretty
straightforward with the awesome docs! Well, once ya find it all ;-)
In my config, I declared
smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/lists/traps
with entries in "/etc/postfix/lists/traps",
On 2012-04-17 20:20, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
Hey!
I finally installed a postfix mail server this past weekend. Pretty
straightforward with the awesome docs! Well, once ya find it all ;-)
In my config, I declared
smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/etc/postfix/lists/t
On 4/17/2012 1:20 PM, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I finally installed a postfix mail server this past weekend. Pretty
> straightforward with the awesome docs! Well, once ya find it all ;-)
>
> In my config, I declared
>
>
> smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_recipient_access,hash:/et
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:55:05PM +0200, Claudius wrote:
> On 2012-04-17 12:04, Sam Jones wrote:
>
> > And I would add that an inbound MX does not necessarily === the
> > same outbound server a domain would use. Typically anti-spam
> > gateways or hosted services used inbound on one IP, whereas
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 02:25 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> The access(5) man page includes, in part:
...
> So your claim is not supported by the documentation.
> http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
>
> If you wish to make a case that postfix does not behave as
> documented, you'll need to provide cl
On 4/17/2012 3:55 PM, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
>
> FROM: "n###@###.com"
> TO: b...@domain.com, m...@domain.com
>
> For that message send, postfix logs on my end show:
>
> Apr 17 11:52:48 mail postfix/smtpd[23367]: connect from
> smtp.myprovider.com[1.2.3.4]
> Apr 17 11:52:48
On 4/17/2012 2:55 PM, n756...@50mail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 02:25 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> The access(5) man page includes, in part:
> ...
>> So your claim is not supported by the documentation.
>> http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
>>
>> If you wish to make a case that postf
Brian
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 04:09 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> > It looks to me like it's being handled as two separate transactions
> > where one gets discarded and one passes through.
>
> This is a case of your "provider" trying to be "helpful" and splitting each
> recipient into
Quoting Henrik K :
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:43AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a domain is
hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through greylisting in the
end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to make it easy on them!
A shar
n756...@50mail.com:
> Do you know if that kind of recipient-splitting is specifically
> disallowed by any RFC?
It is not forbidden, and it is in fact the basis of how qmail works.
Wietse
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 04:44:49PM -0400, Patrick Domack wrote:
>
> Why bother whitelisting any ip address? I have my system flag the
> outgoing and incoming email address.
Am I defensive or stupid for wondering what's the point of your question?
Surely people whitelist all kinds of things with
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:33:31AM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> Still, is it too much to ask for looking at
> things from many angles or backing up claims with any kind of
> statistics or science instead of personal gut feelings?
Where/how would one collect such data? My mail stream differs from
yo
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:13:55PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:33:31AM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> > Still, is it too much to ask for looking at
> > things from many angles or backing up claims with any kind of
> > statistics or science instead of personal gut feelings?
>
>
40 matches
Mail list logo
