On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:13:14 -0500, "Bill Cole"
wrote:
> alternative to hooking the MD milter into your main smtpd would be to
> define a transport in master.cf running smtpd with MD as a milter,
> and use postfix's transport map to route just the one address there.
> This would also allow you to
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Well the online tester made me aware of it, and some of my clients are stuck
with Outlook Express, thus my interest in it.
Outlook Express can use port 587 quite happily. You just have to tell it
to.
Cheers,
Geoff.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Geoff Shang wrote:
Outlook Express can use port 587 quite happily. You just have to tell it to.
I did also mean to say that you may need it for Outlook 2003 though.
We've got a few people using it and I forget what ended up working for
them.
Geoff.
On 05/02/2013 12:25, Geoff Shang wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Well the online tester made me aware of it, and some of my clients are
stuck with Outlook Express, thus my interest in it.
Outlook Express can use port 587 quite happily. You just have to tell
it to.
Cheers,
On 5 Feb 2013, at 4:46, Mark Alan wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:13:14 -0500, "Bill Cole"
wrote:
alternative to hooking the MD milter into your main smtpd would be to
define a transport in master.cf running smtpd with MD as a milter,
and use postfix's transport map to route just the one addres
--> Noel Jones [2013-02-04 14:56:23 -0600]:
> On 2/4/2013 2:26 PM, Mark Alan wrote:
>
> >
> > But the question here was entirely different: "... to use MimeDefang
> > to sanitize the emails that arrive at ONE of our 3 mailing lists"
> >
> > The problem was not to apply mimedefang to all inco
On 2/5/2013 10:47 AM, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2013, at 4:46, Mark Alan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:13:14 -0500, "Bill Cole"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> alternative to hooking the MD milter into your main smtpd would
>>> be to
>>> define a transport in master.cf running smtpd with MD as a milter,
Nice Wietse!
Have you published a "what has changed list" already?
Thanks and congrats.
Cheers
Rafael
Em 04/02/2013, às 23:30, Wietse Venema escreveu:
> postfix-2.10.0-RC1 gives a preview of what the upcoming stable
> release will look like. I'll make one more pass over the documents,
> and
On 4 Feb 2013, at 16:02, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Well the online tester made me aware of it, and some of my clients are
stuck with Outlook Express, thus my interest in it.
The intrinsically bad idea of SMTPS died before ever being anything like
a standard, and only survived as a zombie protoc
Am 05.02.2013 19:29, schrieb Bill Cole:
> On 4 Feb 2013, at 16:02, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> Well the online tester made me aware of it, and some of my clients are stuck
>> with Outlook Express, thus my
>> interest in it.
>
> The intrinsically bad idea of SMTPS died before ever being anythi
On 2/5/2013 12:29 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> The intrinsically bad idea of SMTPS died before ever being anything
> like a standard, and only survived as a zombie protocol because MS
> jumped on it without thinking.
That's a little harsh. There is nothing wrong with smtps, any more
than https is wron
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE:
> Nice Wietse!
>
> Have you published a "what has changed list" already?
As always, the RELEASE_NOTES file has the overview, and the HISTORY
file has details (I'm not shouting at you; the names are really in
upper case). Both files are available from source code mirrors
Thanks from Germany.
marko
Am 2013-02-05 21:36, schrieb Wietse Venema:
Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE:
Nice Wietse!
Have you published a "what has changed list" already?
As always, the RELEASE_NOTES file has the overview, and the HISTORY
file has details (I'm not shouting at you; the names are r
On 5 Feb 2013, at 14:28, Noel Jones wrote:
On 2/5/2013 12:29 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
The intrinsically bad idea of SMTPS died before ever being anything
like a standard, and only survived as a zombie protocol because MS
jumped on it without thinking.
That's a little harsh. There is nothing wron
After implementing the add-on Sanesecurity anti-spam signatures in response to
a recent posting on the mailing list (thanks Noel!), I am now faced with a
small issue. One of my daily Postscreen summary reports and a Postfix summary
report are being flagged by the jurlbl database and discarded.
Doug Sampson skrev den 2013-02-06 05:22:
Has anyone implemented a way of doing so? If it would help matters, I
would be happy to have any email addressed to root be skipped as
well.
one way could be to make a clamav sigature whitelist that only hits on
this mail reports, imho clamav whitelis
16 matches
Mail list logo
