Hi,
on FreeBSD, I successfully set up a jail host with some jails (via
ezjail) in it. On the host I have 3 network interfaces: re0, lo0, and
lo1. The jails get IP addresses on re0 (IPv6) and lo1 (IPV4), some only
on lo1. I use PF to NAT from lo1 to re0. Hence, all of the jails are
connected to the
Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff:
> Why do I get this error message and how can I achieve that tank also
> relays mail via lo1 not "looping back to itself"?
Configure main.cf:inet_interfaces and list ONLY the IP addresses
that this Postfix instance must receive mail on.
Wietse
rogt3...@proinbox.com:
> Hi,
>
> I'm setting up a postscreen instance in a multi_instance setup.
>
> I've read the docs on the Deep Protocol Tests stage. The tests
> seem helpful but for course there's the fact that on a PASS of
> good-to-this-point mail, it "waits for the client to disconnect.
Wietse Venema [2015-01-23 06:40 -0500] :
> Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff:
>
> > Why do I get this error message and how can I achieve that tank also
> > relays mail via lo1 not "looping back to itself"?
>
> Configure main.cf:inet_interfaces and list ONLY the IP addresses that
> this Postfix instanc
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 03:41 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> rogt3...@proinbox.com:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm setting up a postscreen instance in a multi_instance setup.
> >
> > I've read the docs on the Deep Protocol Tests stage. The tests
> > seem helpful but for course there's the fact that on a PAS
Hi all,
Is there any way to use the postfix policy delegation mechanism to filter the transport:destination differently for individual
recipients in a multi-recipient message?
This is actually a follow-up to my post of 3 days ago: "Can check_policy_service override sender_dependent_relayhost_m
We are using a commercial version of sendmail (refer to sendmail.com)
on RHEL 5.x
We have seen something like 2 mails sent to it within 5 mins &
it just hung up or caused severe delay in delivery.
Q1:
Is postfix (which is now the default Smtp with RHEL 6.x) more robust ie can
take bursts of h
rogt3...@proinbox.com:
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 03:41 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > rogt3...@proinbox.com:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm setting up a postscreen instance in a multi_instance setup.
> > >
> > > I've read the docs on the Deep Protocol Tests stage. The tests
> > > seem helpful but f
On Fri, January 23, 2015 08:56, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> You have no control over how often remote senders retry deliveries,
> nor do you control whether they will retry from the same IP address.
> Some providers will retry from a random IP address in a large pool,
> and those will never get past
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 05:56 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> rogt3...@proinbox.com:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 03:41 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > rogt3...@proinbox.com:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm setting up a postscreen instance in a multi_instance setup.
> > > >
> > > > I've read th
James
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 06:16 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> We have had to whitelist some of our larger clients because of this
> very issue. We had one case where the same message was retried from
> at least five different IPs apparently because it was sent from a
> BlackBerry.
In that c
On 1/23/2015 7:42 AM, Chris Robinson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there any way to use the postfix policy delegation mechanism to
> filter the transport:destination differently for individual
> recipients in a multi-recipient message?
>
The FILTER action is a per-message (not per-recipient) action.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:43:39PM +0800, Roger Goh wrote:
> We are using a commercial version of sendmail (refer to sendmail.com)
> on RHEL 5.x
>
> We have seen something like 2 mails sent to it within 5 mins &
> it just hung up or caused severe delay in delivery.
Sendmail has no queue mana
On Fri, January 23, 2015 09:23, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> James
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 06:16 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> We have had to whitelist some of our larger clients because of this
>> very issue. We had one case where the same message was retried from
>> at least five differen
James
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 07:25 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> To the best of my ability to recall the mail was coming from/through
> servers in the user's own domain, which is a quite large
> multi-national. We never saw this problem with any other user of
> theirs. Of course, having white li
Am 23.01.2015 um 15:23 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 06:16 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
We have had to whitelist some of our larger clients because of this
very issue. We had one case where the same message was retried from
at least five different IPs apparently because
rogt3...@proinbox.com:
> > When you ask "what is the best way to shoot myself into the foot",
> > then my answer is "don't do that", even if you did not ask for that
> > answer.
>
> I see. So one lesson I learn is that when the docs say "Wietse
> enables "deep protocol tests" on his own internet-
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 08:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Never assume malice when limited resources get in the way of keeping
> Postfix documentation up to date.
Interesting reply from someone who regularly spews venom at people and can't
seem to reply without an "As documented smething-or-oth
Am 23.01.2015 um 17:23 schrieb rogt3...@proinbox.com:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 08:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Never assume malice when limited resources get in the way of keeping
Postfix documentation up to date.
Interesting reply from someone who regularly spews venom at people and can't see
On 23/01/2015 17:14, Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/23/2015 7:42 AM, Chris Robinson wrote:
Hi all,
Is there any way to use the postfix policy delegation mechanism to
filter the transport:destination differently for individual
recipients in a multi-recipient message?
The FILTER action is a per-mess
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:31:39PM +, Chris Robinson wrote:
> If
> must be a transport:destination then maybe could be an entry in
> master.cf that was a unique version of smtp which had a postconf parameter
> to point it at the special transport map.
>
> Is something like this fea
Chris Robinson:
>
> On 23/01/2015 17:14, Noel Jones wrote:
> > On 1/23/2015 7:42 AM, Chris Robinson wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Is there any way to use the postfix policy delegation mechanism to
> >> filter the transport:destination differently for individual
> >> recipients in a multi-recipient
On 1/23/2015 10:41 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> For custom per-user routing that depends on policy-based factors
> force an extra SMTP hop for the entire message via a transport with
> recipient concurrency set to 1. On the receiving end of that you
> can do per-user FILTER actions as messages
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:40 AM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:32 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> > Of course, automatic address verification depends on the target
> > server correctly responding to unknown recipients.
I'm putting the pieces of my MULTI_INSTANCE + FIREWALL
On 1/23/2015 1:50 PM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:40 AM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:32 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> Of course, automatic address verification depends on the target
>>> server correctly responding to unknown recipient
Hi Noel
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/23/2015 1:50 PM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:40 AM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:32 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> >>> Of course, automatic address verification
On 1/23/2015 2:33 PM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> Hi Noel
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 1/23/2015 1:50 PM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:40 AM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 08:32 AM, Noel Jone
Noel
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Unless you're currently planning on using an after-queue content
> inspection system,
I will be quite soon ... like I said I'll be replacing those servers. That
includes implementing filter/milters etc. I'm reading up on those in pa
On 1/23/2015 2:54 PM, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> Noel
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> Unless you're currently planning on using an after-queue content
>> inspection system,
>
> I will be quite soon ... like I said I'll be replacing those servers. That
> include
On Fri, January 23, 2015 11:23, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 08:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Never assume malice when limited resources get in the way of keeping
>> Postfix documentation up to date.
>
> Interesting reply from someone who regularly spews venom at pe
James
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 02:07 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Fri, January 23, 2015 11:23, rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 08:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> Never assume malice when limited resources get in the way of keeping
> >> Postfix documentation
rogt3...@proinbox.com wrote:
> Perhaps you might want to hang out with a email crowd. Over the years,
> been on the exim list? Ever had the pleasure of dealing with
> [..snipped..]
IMO it's not fair to mention another person who cannot answer.
Please, everybody should calm down, step back for n
On 23. jan. 2015 11.29.18 Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff
> 127.0.2.1 mail mail.something.tld
fqdn first, not last
33 matches
Mail list logo
