A major fuckup on part of spamhaus:

2012-05-04 Thread Ralf Hildebrandt
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/query/SBL138067 The evidence section lists "inetnum: 95.218.0.0 - 95.219.255.255", yet spamhaus listed 93.218.0.0/15 (93 instead of 95)! 93.218.0.0/15 includes large parts of german Deutsche Telekom dialups :| -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Net

Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus:

2012-05-04 Thread Marko Weber
WTF ! Am 04.05.2012 13:12, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt: http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/query/SBL138067 The evidence section lists "inetnum: 95.218.0.0 - 95.219.255.255", yet spamhaus listed 93.218.0.0/15 (93 instead of 95)! 93.218.0.0/15 includes large parts of german Deutsche Telekom dialups :|

Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus:

2012-05-04 Thread Steve
1) Should not happen but it did. No one is perfect. 2) I hope you guys don't just blindly trust one RBL provider? Postscreen allows perfectly to craft weighted BL. 3) Instead of shouting out here has any one reported them their mistake? Original-Nachricht > Datum: Fri, 04 Ma

Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus:

2012-05-04 Thread Ralf Hildebrandt
* Steve : > 1) Should not happen but it did. No one is perfect. > 2) I hope you guys don't just blindly trust one RBL provider? Postscreen > allows perfectly to craft weighted BL. > 3) Instead of shouting out here has any one reported them their mistake? It has been fixed. -- Ralf Hildebran

Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus:

2012-05-04 Thread Ansgar Wiechers
On 2012-05-04 Steve wrote: > 1) Should not happen but it did. No one is perfect. > 2) I hope you guys don't just blindly trust one RBL provider? >Postscreen allows perfectly to craft weighted BL. policyd-weight does weighted checks, too. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "Abstractions save us time

Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus:

2012-05-04 Thread Steve
Original-Nachricht > Datum: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:34:45 +0200 > Von: Ralf Hildebrandt > An: postfix-users@postfix.org > Betreff: Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus: > * Steve : > > 1) Should not happen but it did. No one is perfect. > > 2) I hope you guys don't just blindly tr

Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus:

2012-05-04 Thread Steve
Original-Nachricht > Datum: Fri, 4 May 2012 14:36:44 +0200 > Von: Ansgar Wiechers > An: postfix-users@postfix.org > Betreff: Re: A major fuckup on part of spamhaus: > On 2012-05-04 Steve wrote: > > 1) Should not happen but it did. No one is perfect. > > 2) I hope you guys don't

Re: Multiple IP

2012-05-04 Thread Mikael Bak
On 05/03/2012 07:45 AM, Kirill Bychkov wrote: > Hi all, > > I need create server with 5 IP addresses (interfaces) and postfix(es). > The role of this server is relay. > If message delivered into my mail server on one ip address, for example, > 172.16.35.35, so this message should be sent from same

Re: Stress docs update

2012-05-04 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 05/03/12 05:14, Rob Sterenborg wrote: >> >> Credits > > According to the POSTSCREEN_README, postscreen doesn't do greylisting at > all: postscreen and greylisting are different things. The below is your > patch adapted with a partial copy-paste from the POSTSCREEN_README. > When a client p

Postscreen DNSBL weights

2012-05-04 Thread Rod K
Hi all, Was wondering if anyone would be willing to share what DNSBL and weights they are using with Postscreen. Thanks, Rod

still being delivered

2012-05-04 Thread Frank Bonnet
Hello I noticed 534 messages like the following on our MX server's log, since this morning ... I need some clarifications please. postfix version is 2.10-20120423 May 4 18:00:14 hp9 postfix/qmgr[13147]: BA27314E95DE: skipped, still being delivered Thank you

Re: still being delivered

2012-05-04 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 04.05.2012 18:07, schrieb Frank Bonnet: > Hello > > I noticed 534 messages like the following on our MX server's log, > since this morning ... I need some clarifications please. > postfix version is 2.10-20120423 > > May 4 18:00:14 hp9 postfix/qmgr[13147]: BA27314E95DE: skipped, still being

Re: still being delivered

2012-05-04 Thread Frank Bonnet
On 05/04/2012 06:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 04.05.2012 18:07, schrieb Frank Bonnet: Hello I noticed 534 messages like the following on our MX server's log, since this morning ... I need some clarifications please. postfix version is 2.10-20120423 May 4 18:00:14 hp9 postfix/qmgr[13147]: B

separate log for amavisd-new

2012-05-04 Thread Scott Brown
Hello, Instead of including the amavisd activity in the maillog, I want to have a separate log file.  I can't figure out how to get this working though. For some reason, amavisd isn't writing to the log file that's defined in /etc/amavisd.conf If I do a directory listing, the log still shows as

Re: separate log for amavisd-new

2012-05-04 Thread john
I am not sure that this is the right place to ask about NON-postfix problems. But, have you checked the log file permissions. JohnA On 04/05/2012 12:45 PM, Scott Brown wrote: Hello, Instead of including the amavisd activity in the maillog, I want to have a separate log file. I can't figure ou

Re: still being delivered

2012-05-04 Thread Wietse Venema
Frank Bonnet: > On 05/04/2012 06:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 04.05.2012 18:07, schrieb Frank Bonnet: > >> Hello > >> > >> I noticed 534 messages like the following on our MX server's log, > >> since this morning ... I need some clarifications please. > >> postfix version is 2.10-20120423

Re: separate log for amavisd-new

2012-05-04 Thread Patric Falinder
On 2012-05-04 18:45, Scott Brown wrote: Hello, Instead of including the amavisd activity in the maillog, I want to have a separate log file. I can't figure out how to get this working though. For some reason, amavisd isn't writing to the log file that's defined in /etc/amavisd.conf If I do a

Re: discard mime to and cc recipients

2012-05-04 Thread Michael J Wise
On May 3, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Bányász Botond wrote: > Thank you Wietse this was what i didnt` knew. A custom Policy Daemon might be able to achieve what you seek by inspecting the message's "822" headers, and then rendering a verdict on it. > B?ny?sz Botond: > > I would like to ask? if it`s pos

Timeout when talking to slow remote SMTP server

2012-05-04 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
I'm having issues sending email to a public list because connecting to the MX for the list takes too long. From the postfix log: May 3 09:50:32 edge01-zcs postfix/qmgr[13714]: 54A1D1BD: from=, size=1764, nrcpt=1 (queue active) May 3 09:50:53 edge01-zcs postfix/smtp[14285]: connect to megawa

Re: Running on idle systems

2012-05-04 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 5/3/2012 6:54 PM, Bill Cole wrote: ... > For many of these systems, > the OS resides on a mirrored pair of local disks which see very > infrequent writes because every filesystem with significant flux is > physically resident across the SAN. Spinning disks draw power. Anything > drawing power ge

Re: Timeout when talking to slow remote SMTP server

2012-05-04 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--On Thursday, May 03, 2012 9:57 AM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: I'm having issues sending email to a public list because connecting to the MX for the list takes too long. From the postfix log: This can be ignored, it was because of a firewall rule blocking the new hardware I am using

best way to stop all outbound delivery?

2012-05-04 Thread Florin Andrei
I've a Linux machine which is used as a final destination for test emails. Some local inboxes are created, local delivery via Dovecot to IMAP. I want this machine to never send out any email whatsoever. Never relay. Accept inbound messages, deliver locally to IMAP - all that is fine. But no me

Re: best way to stop all outbound delivery?

2012-05-04 Thread Wietse Venema
Florin Andrei: > I've a Linux machine which is used as a final destination for test > emails. Some local inboxes are created, local delivery via Dovecot to IMAP. > > I want this machine to never send out any email whatsoever. Never relay. > Accept inbound messages, deliver locally to IMAP - all

Re: Running on idle systems

2012-05-04 Thread Bill Cole
On 4 May 2012, at 17:00, Stan Hoeppner wrote: On 5/3/2012 6:54 PM, Bill Cole wrote: ... For many of these systems, the OS resides on a mirrored pair of local disks which see very infrequent writes because every filesystem with significant flux is physically resident across the SAN. Spinning dis

header_checks rule that doesn't work

2012-05-04 Thread Vincent Lefevre
I've received a mail having: From: =?GB2312?B?tfXBoyy2/rrP0ru19cGjLMj9us/Su7X1waMsy8S6z9K7tfXBoyy3/srOtfXB?= I wanted to reject such mail with /^.=\?GB2312\?B\?/ REJECT GB2312 in headers in header_checks.pcre, but this didn't work. I don't understand because postmap -q - pcre:/etc/postfix

Re: header_checks rule that doesn't work

2012-05-04 Thread Wietse Venema
Vincent Lefevre: > I've received a mail having: > > From: > =?GB2312?B?tfXBoyy2/rrP0ru19cGjLMj9us/Su7X1waMsy8S6z9K7tfXBoyy3/srOtfXB?= > > I wanted to reject such mail with > > /^.=\?GB2312\?B\?/ > REJECT GB2312 in headers > > in header_checks.pcre, but this didn't work. I don't understand be

Re: header_checks rule that doesn't work

2012-05-04 Thread /dev/rob0
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:03:35PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Vincent Lefevre: > > I've received a mail having: > > > > From: > > =?GB2312?B?tfXBoyy2/rrP0ru19cGjLMj9us/Su7X1waMsy8S6z9K7tfXBoyy3/srOtfXB?= > > > > I wanted to reject such mail with > > > > /^.=\?GB2312\?B\?/ REJECT GB2312 in

Re: still being delivered

2012-05-04 Thread Frank Bonnet
Le 04/05/2012 19:42, Wietse Venema a écrit : Frank Bonnet: On 05/04/2012 06:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 04.05.2012 18:07, schrieb Frank Bonnet: Hello I noticed 534 messages like the following on our MX server's log, since this morning ... I need some clarifications please. postfix versio

Re: best way to stop all outbound delivery?

2012-05-04 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 05.05.2012 02:48, schrieb Wietse Venema: > Florin Andrei: >> I've a Linux machine which is used as a final destination for test >> emails. Some local inboxes are created, local delivery via Dovecot to IMAP. >> >> I want this machine to never send out any email whatsoever. Never relay. >> Acc

Re: Running on idle systems

2012-05-04 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 05.05.2012 03:05, schrieb Bill Cole: > Systems can live a long time without drive replacements. but only if you do not permanently spin them up and down power managment is the dead of a drive i have here disks with > 35.000 uptime you can be sure with "power-managment" they would still be d

Re: still being delivered

2012-05-04 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 05.05.2012 07:38, schrieb Frank Bonnet: >>> well ... it happened 534 times today ... from 00:00 till 18:00 >>> >>> I reload postfix one time today after updating one map >> What other maps did you update? >> >> I have tried to remove all lookup table dependencies from qmgr, >> because qmgr wi