Hello,
I am sending this message after searching for a solution on the Internet.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a valid way to deal with my
problem.
My question is about address rewriting in Postfix.
I have a bunch of users using internal addresses (p.e. user@mydomain.local).
Some of t
Koldo Navarro:
> [using sender_bcc_maps]
> user@mydomain.localregistry@mydomain.local
> then I get copy of all emails, both internal and outgoing ones. But I don't
> want to keep a copy of internal emails as there are too many of them, and I
> wouldn't want to have to set filters in the mail cl
Hello,
thanks for your answer, but copy depends only on sender. All outgoing
emails must be copied, regardless the recipient.
Greetings
On 5 January 2015 at 14:16, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Koldo Navarro:
> > [using sender_bcc_maps]
> > user@mydomain.localregistry@mydomain.local
> > then I ge
> Greetings
Koldo Navarro:
> thanks for your answer, but copy depends only on sender. All outgoing
> emails must be copied, regardless the recipient.
So it depends on sender *and* destination (you want to copy
all remote mail from a specific sender).
In that case, you need the second part of my r
Hello,
I noticed that many Exchange Servers nowadays have problems with TLS. Is
there a way to make a fallback to plain if there is a timeout on MAIL
FROM? I currently use smtp_tls_security_level=may
I found some 100's domains on different IPs which have this problems
right now, here is a ex
Am 05.01.2015 um 15:10 schrieb Matthias Schneider:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that many Exchange Servers nowadays have problems with TLS. Is
> there a way to make a fallback to plain if there is a timeout on MAIL
> FROM? I currently use smtp_tls_security_level=may
>
> I found some 100's domains on di
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:10:49PM +0100, Matthias Schneider wrote:
> I noticed that many Exchange Servers nowadays have problems with TLS. Is
> there a way to make a fallback to plain if there is a timeout on MAIL FROM?
Postfix 2.12 (almost released, but for now 2.12-20141228 is the
latest snaps
On 1/4/2015 5:43 PM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> My question is about usage.
>
> Is there a reason NOT to simply use the 521 hangup coes for ALL the spamhaus
> hits from 127.0.0.2-11 ? It seems to me like all of those would be good
> candidates.
The 521 response code is a fairly recent inve
On 4 Jan 2015, at 18:43, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
Reading Postfix's docs re
Disconnect suspicious SMTP clients
http://www.postfix.org/STRESS_README.html#hangup
in the example there it says
"To hang up connections from blacklisted zombies, you can set specific
Postfix SMTP server reject c
On 05 Jan 2015, at 15:52, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:10:49PM +0100, Matthias Schneider wrote:
>
>> I noticed that many Exchange Servers nowadays have problems with TLS. Is
>> there a way to make a fallback to plain if there is a timeout on MAIL FROM?
>
> Postfix 2.12 (a
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:01:03PM +0100, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> > With RC4-SHA early enough for the 11-year old Microsoft Exchange
> > servers.
>
> Sadly, older Exchange servers (2003 at least) will favour 3DES over RC4
> for TLS connections, IIRC.
This is not correct.
> I don't have the fi
Am 05.01.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:01:03PM +0100, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
With RC4-SHA early enough for the 11-year old Microsoft Exchange
servers.
Sadly, older Exchange servers (2003 at least) will favour 3DES over RC4
for TLS connections, IIRC.
This
On 05 Jan 2015, at 18:47, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:01:03PM +0100, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>
>>> With RC4-SHA early enough for the 11-year old Microsoft Exchange
>>> servers.
>>
>> Sadly, older Exchange servers (2003 at least) will favour 3DES over RC4
>> for TLS conne
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:59:06PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> >No, this is a bad idea, it is in fact 3DES that is broken with such servers
>
> Shouldn't we start to disable RC4 as well as DES-CBC3-SHA for that horrible
> outdated crap servers and fallback to unencrypted at all instead conti
On 05 Jan 2015, at 18:59, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> Am 05.01.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:01:03PM +0100, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>>
With RC4-SHA early enough for the 11-year old Microsoft Exchange
servers.
>>>
>>> Sadly, older Exchange servers (20
Den 05.01.2015 18:59, skrev li...@rhsoft.net:
>
> Am 05.01.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:01:03PM +0100, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>>
With RC4-SHA early enough for the 11-year old Microsoft Exchange
servers.
>>>
>>> Sadly, older Exchange servers (2003 a
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:18, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:59:06PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>>> No, this is a bad idea, it is in fact 3DES that is broken with such servers
>>
>> Shouldn't we start to disable RC4 as well as DES-CBC3-SHA for that horrible
>> outdated cr
Am 05.01.2015 um 19:43 schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:18, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:59:06PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
No, this is a bad idea, it is in fact 3DES that is broken with such servers
Shouldn't we start to disable RC4 as well as DES-CB
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:33, Per Thorsheim wrote:
> Den 05.01.2015 18:59, skrev li...@rhsoft.net:
>>
>> Am 05.01.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
>>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:01:03PM +0100, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>>>
> With RC4-SHA early enough for the 11-year old Microsoft Exchange
>>
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:51, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>>> Gmail's outbound servers prefers RC4-SHA if offered by the SMTP
>>> server, when Gmail drops RC4 support, these domains will finally
>>> feel real pressure to either disable or fix their TLS stack.
>>
>> Gmail prefers ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA, and
Am 05.01.2015 um 20:23 schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
On 05 Jan 2015, at 19:51, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Gmail's outbound servers prefers RC4-SHA if offered by the SMTP
server, when Gmail drops RC4 support, these domains will finally
feel real pressure to either disable or fix their TLS stack.
Gmai
Yes... I didn't see it that way. I was more on Postfix to apply the
bcc_maps rules based on the sender's external addresses. I had already
tried some rules based on disregarding emails with local recipients, but
there may be a mixture of local and external ones in the same email, and it
didn't work
22 matches
Mail list logo
