David and Noel, thanks for the pointer how to trace mails.
Victor -- good catch. I don't remember how I came up with the old
ordb.org. I looked up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DNS_blacklists and it's not
even listed there.
The following URLs were useful to compare size and effectiv
Viktor Dukhovni:
> 20101108
>
> Workaround: strip off IPv6 datalink suffix from peer address
> to avoid problems with strict address checking code. Files:
> smtpd/smtpd_peer.c, qmqpd/qmqpd_peer.c.
>
> this solves the issue when clients with link-local address
On 10/28/2012 7:43 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> My ideal configuration would be as follow:
> - Check 2 or 3 larger DNS blacklists.
> - If it is positive match, greylist. If not, allow the mail right away.
> - Add a header with the result of the blacklisting (so spamassassin
> can add some points,
> For a more clueful guide to the perplexed:
> http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#quick-start
I neither know Bash nor Perl. That's why I decided to ask about the
commands from "CA.pl" and about this [1] guide in general.
So, could you elaborate on the following? What are we actually
Hi,
I don't want to send emails directly from my server. (I'm going to
connect from a client.)
I have the following settings in "main.cf":
mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_sasl_authenticated,permit_mynetworks,reject_unauth_destination
I guess that I should remove "
Am 28.10.2012 17:47, schrieb thorso...@lavabit.com:
> I don't want to send emails directly from my server. (I'm going to
> connect from a client.)
so simply do not
> I have the following settings in "main.cf":
>
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_sasl_authenti
On Oct 28, 2012, at 12.47, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't want to send emails directly from my server. (I'm going to
> connect from a client.)
>
> I have the following settings in "main.cf":
>
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_sasl_authenticate
--On Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:49 AM -0400 Wietse Venema
wrote:
Viktor Dukhovni:
20101108
Workaround: strip off IPv6 datalink suffix from peer address
to avoid problems with strict address checking code. Files:
smtpd/smtpd_peer.c, qmqpd/qmqpd_peer.c.
this solves
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 02:40:27PM -0400, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 12.47, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> > I don't want to send emails directly from my server. (I'm going
> > to connect from a client.)
> >
> > I have the following settings in "main.cf":
> >
> > mynetworks =
Hey Wietse.
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 22:33 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix implements traditional UNIX mbox format and locks.
Yeah clear...
> Theoretically it is possible to add a support bazillion variants.
Well... I only know about 4 variants, of which only one is really broken
(mboxo).
>
Christoph Anton Mitterer:
[blah blah evangelism blah]
> So... what exactly speaks against switching to it? :)
Breaking compatibility? Over my dead body. However, providing a new
parameter that is BACKWARDS-COMPATIBLE BY DEFAULT would be a
possibility,
> If it's just the time needed to write a pat
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 17:00 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Breaking compatibility?
Could you explain why you think it would break compatibility?
AFAIU, mboxrd just means that you also quote lines like
>From foo
to
>>From foo
(and the same for more trailing ">").
I wouldn't see how an existing clien
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:41:16PM -0400, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Victor:
> > For a more clueful guide to the perplexed:
>
> > http://www.postfix.org/TLS_README.html#quick-start
>
> I neither know Bash nor Perl. That's why I decided to ask about
> the commands from "CA.pl" and abou
Oh and one more thing...
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 17:00 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Breaking compatibility? Over my dead body.
You always seem to put high priority in having the most secure and
stable way in your decisions...
Even if there was some major compatibility issue with mboxrd (which I
do
Hello,
We currently run a postfix smtp gateway which is behind a Firewall and Load
balancer (using NAT). We have 8 servers and want to enable TLS. I am keen to
have a better understanding of how TLS works with Postfix. I have been unable
to find more information to answer the specific question.
Am 29.10.2012 00:01, schrieb Jimmy Stewpot:
> I want to know if the TLS validation is done based on the public IP
> which has a reverse resolve of the hostname when the server answers
> the connect/session.
the client looks always if the cert matchs the hostname he is connecting to
that is al
On 29/10/12 10:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Even if there was some major compatibility issue with mboxrd (which I
> don't see yet)... wouldn't data integrity of the user's mail be of the
> "highest" priority?
>
> As said, with mboxo one has basically no chance at all to recover the
> orig
Hi Peter.
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 12:36 +1300, Peter wrote:
> You know you could just use a different delivery agent that supports the
> mbox format you want. Nothing says that you have to use local(8).
Yeah of course...
But my wish to improve this is not for myself... neither do I use mbox*
(well
I want to redirect all mails that expire after maximal_queue_lifetime
to a program that will parse these mails then send an appropriate error
Can I do this with postfix ?
Thanks
Ram
19 matches
Mail list logo
