Hi ,
I am using the postfix-2.9.4-1.rhel5.x86_64 and smtplogin maps with auth
feature. which Its working properly.
Below is the working config from main.cf :--
smtpd_sender_login_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/smtploginmaps
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_sender_login_m
Thanks for all
I have read the document
http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
Maybe it's not what I need to setting. I don't have internal email
distribution list, so do not need to protect it. And I don't want to
restrict any user send mail to off-site destinations.
My customer hav
Hi,
I have message_size_limit set at the default value:
# postconf | grep message_size_limit
message_size_limit = 1024
I create a file to attach by:
# dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/75 bs=1024 count=7500
and then try to send it with:
# echo 'test 75' | biabam /tmp/75 -s test75 myaddr...@example.
On 6/6/2013 3:47 AM, jayesh shinde wrote:
> But now a days few of my users who are using the MS Outlook 2007
> are start sending the emails by changing the different From:
> address and creating problem.
> The MS outlook have the feature where end user can use any other's
> email id in From: F
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
Why is there a 2Mb+ difference between the message_size_limit value and the
attachment size accepted? (I don't think the envelope can take 2Mb...)
It doesn't. But an encoded attachment does take up quite a deal more
space than the original file (it
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Geoff Shang wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
>
> Why is there a 2Mb+ difference between the message_size_limit value and
>> the
>> attachment size accepted? (I don't think the envelope can take 2Mb...)
>>
>
> It doesn't. But an encoded attachme
On 6/6/2013 4:02 AM, Feel Zhou wrote:
> Thanks for all
> I have read the document
> http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
> Maybe it's not what I need to setting. I don't have internal email
> distribution list, so do not need to protect it. And I don't want to
> restrict any user s
Hi ,
Is there any alternative , how to stop if spammer / virus infected
machine start sending such emails.
Due to this outlook's "On Behalf of" option , one of our end user
created the noise. This option makes confusion , when the end
recipient receive the emails and reply it.
I came to k
jayesh shinde:
> Hi ,
>
> Is there any alternative , how to stop if spammer / virus infected
> machine start sending such emails.
> Due to this outlook's "On Behalf of" option , one of our end user
> created the noise. This option makes confusion , when the end
> recipient receive the emails
IMHO, preventing emails with differing from and sender values is contradictory
to valid usage of email. You are better off rate-limiting, as was already
suggested, and employing better mail content analysis through policy servers.
Ron Scott-Adams
r...@tohuw.net
"We are stuck with technology whe
On 6 Jun 2013, at 9:33, jayesh shinde wrote:
Hi ,
Is there any alternative , how to stop if spammer / virus infected
machine start sending such emails.
Due to this outlook's "On Behalf of" option , one of our end user
created the noise. This option makes confusion , when the end
recipient
On 06 Jun 2013, at 06:40 , Raphael Bauduin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have message_size_limit set at the default value:
> # postconf | grep message_size_limit
> message_size_limit = 1024
>
> I create a file to attach by:
> # dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/75 bs=1024 count=7500
>
> and then try to sen
On 06/04/2013 08:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Please file a bug report with your distribution.
>
> Postfix 2.10 as distributed by me will add a backwards-compatibility
> setting to main.cf, thusly:
>
> # postfix upgrade-configuration
> COMPATIBILITY: editing /etc/postfix/main.cf, overr
Michael Orlitzky:
> On 06/04/2013 08:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Please file a bug report with your distribution.
> >
> > Postfix 2.10 as distributed by me will add a backwards-compatibility
> > setting to main.cf, thusly:
> >
> > # postfix upgrade-configuration
> > COMPATIBILITY: edi
If your distributor has removed this backwards-compatibility safety
net, then please tell them that they are doing their users a
disservice.
why is permit_sasl_authenticated missing in default 2.10 settings then
? (c code defaults)
Benny Pedersen:
> > If your distributor has removed this backwards-compatibility safety
> > net, then please tell them that they are doing their users a
> > disservice.
>
> why is permit_sasl_authenticated missing in default 2.10 settings then
> ? (c code defaults)
This was discussed extensivel
wie...@porcupine.org skrev den 2013-06-07 03:17:
This was discussed extensively on the list. Learn to search.
or simply create a patch in c, more easy then read 1 emails about
the big problem :)
Thanks Noel
one more thing, How to setting one IP bind two or three domain
Thanks a lot
2013/6/6 Noel Jones
> On 6/6/2013 4:02 AM, Feel Zhou wrote:
> > Thanks for all
> > I have read the document
> > http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
> > Maybe it's not what I need to settin
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2013, 20:06:48 schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> Postfix 2.10 on Gentoo adds the safety net, but the package manager
> won't automatically clobber files under /etc. You're supposed to run a
> tool (etc-update) afterwards to merge any changes. I'm guessing that's
> what got ski
19 matches
Mail list logo
