Hi,
> I have a trivial question, which could become a wish list feature.
>
> There are three MTAs. First is a web server postfix instance that relates all
> mail to the second MTAS, a relay server, which can send mail directly to the
> world. This relay server and a third MTA are two postfix mu
ghalvor...@hushmail.com wrote:
> A HOWTO that has been around for a few months is still nice, especially if
> the author maintains it so that the flaws and errors are corrected as
> people point them out. I am really surprised at how no one really adopts
> the crowd-source wiki approach. It seems
I decided to change the /etc/hostname to bob.example.com (previously
example.com) in order to conform more closely with the document.
http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html
I didn't think I really needed to have a hostname, because why would a single
machine need to have a se
Am 14.12.2014 um 18:50 schrieb ghalvor...@hushmail.com:
I decided to change the /etc/hostname to bob.example.com (previously
example.com) in order to conform more closely with the document.
http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html
I didn't think I really needed to have a host
Okay, so it wasn't necessary for me to change my hostname, just as long as it
matches the DNS records?
I also noticed that $myhostname was defined, not by the file, but by a direct
assignment in main.cf. I changed that too.
On December 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>Am 14.12.
Am 14.12.2014 um 19:09 schrieb ghalvor...@hushmail.com:
Okay, so it wasn't necessary for me to change my hostname, just as long as it
matches the DNS records?
if it macthed before and now it donät the change was in fact wrong
I also noticed that $myhostname was defined, not by the file, but
Michael Str?der:
> Reasons why there is no such HOWTO maintained for a long time:
>
> People asking for HOWTOs are not capable writing decent HOWTOs. If they went
> through their own learning curve leading to good working results they usually
> have no interest to share the insights with others. T
On 14.12.2014. 20:39, Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Str?der:
Reasons why there is no such HOWTO maintained for a long time:
People asking for HOWTOs are not capable writing decent HOWTOs. If they went
through their own learning curve leading to good working results they usually
have no interest
ghalvor...@hushmail.com:
> I decided to change the /etc/hostname to bob.example.com (previously
> example.com) in order to conform more closely with the document.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html
>
> I didn't think I really needed to have a hostname, because why
> wo
Hi,
sorry, if this question might be a little off-topic, but I really do not
understand some DMARC reports that I receive in conjunction to this mailing
list and maybe someone can help me in digging down the problem:
*.com
noreply-dmarc@*.com
roessner-network-solutions.com:141
Christian R??ner:
> sorry, if this question might be a little off-topic, but I really
> do not understand some DMARC reports that I receive in conjunction
> to this mailing list and maybe someone can help me in digging down
> the problem:
Perhaps a stupid question: can you exclude DNS lookup probl
Am 14.12.2014 um 23:48 schrieb Christian Rößner:
If I do understand this report right, DKIM passes, but SPF failed. If I look to
my last mail, I sent this day, I see this in the headers:
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.0 mx.roessner-net.de 3k0hcj6S5RzGpN5
Authentication-Results: mx.roessne
> Am 14.12.2014 um 23:53 schrieb Wietse Venema :
>
> Christian R??ner:
>> sorry, if this question might be a little off-topic, but I really
>> do not understand some DMARC reports that I receive in conjunction
>> to this mailing list and maybe someone can help me in digging down
>> the problem:
>
> Am 14.12.2014 um 23:56 schrieb li...@rhsoft.net:
>
> i guess that fools apply the SPF test to the From-Header instead to the
> envelope, frankly Barracuda Networks does the same for Spoofing-Protection
> because "customers complained"
>
> without knowing details i would suggest the problem i
Christian R??ner:
>
> > Am 14.12.2014 um 23:53 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> >
> > Christian R??ner:
> >> sorry, if this question might be a little off-topic, but I really
> >> do not understand some DMARC reports that I receive in conjunction
> >> to this mailing list and maybe someone can help me i
Hello list,
In Nov we updated OpenSSL due to latest security alerts, and at the same
time, placed Postfix-2.7.2 everywhere (in house package version).
>From this day, the graphs charting the number of smtpd processes have gone
from ~100 to about ~500. So it is definitely a recent change we did,
Am 15.12.2014 um 01:12 schrieb Jorgen Lundman:
In Nov we updated OpenSSL due to latest security alerts, and at the same
time, placed Postfix-2.7.2 everywhere (in house package version).
From this day, the graphs charting the number of smtpd processes have gone
from ~100 to about ~500. So it is
> Am 15.12.2014 um 00:36 schrieb Wietse Venema :
>
> Christian R??ner:
>>
>>> Am 14.12.2014 um 23:53 schrieb Wietse Venema :
>>>
>>> Christian R??ner:
sorry, if this question might be a little off-topic, but I really
do not understand some DMARC reports that I receive in conjunction
>
>
> just fix clients not proper closing connections
>
snoop of L4 connections confirm "QUIT", Rst and Rst+Ack. As far as I can
tell, they are dropped as expected.
Lund
--
Jorgen Lundman |
Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work)
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8
Jorgen Lundman:
> I have noticed that if I setup the L4 to just do the health-checks, but not
> pass through any emails, the amount of smtpd processes balloons to ~1000,
> then shrinks down to a stable ~400.
>
> They are all idle, waiting for a timeout. Presumably there is some process
> reuse in
Christian R??ner:
> I found the answer and I fear there is no chance to solve this:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/?include_text=1
>
> It's the problem with DMARC. Nearly the same problem that I posted
> some days ago. It's all about the RFC5322 from address. DMAR
On 12/14/14, 7:36 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Christian R??ner:
I found the answer and I fear there is no chance to solve this:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/?include_text=1
It's the problem with DMARC. Nearly the same problem that I posted
some days ago. It's all ab
On Sun, December 14, 2014 20:05, Richard Damon wrote:
> DMARC says that if a domain requests DMARC protection then any message
> that has a RFC5322 domain pointing to it, must be verifiable as coming
> from that domain, thus such an address can NOT use a 3rd party (like a
> mailing list manager)
23 matches
Mail list logo
