Dear All,
I am using postfix 2.6 and currently cannot upgrade it. kindly advise how
renegotiation can be disabled completely. Probably a command in
configuration file.
regards,
Abid
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/SSL-Renegotiation-Attack-Disabling-rene
Hai,
As far as i know, no.
Unless you are forceing all clients to use SSLv2 only (since that doesn't
support renegotiation).
Are you sure you want to disable it and not just prevent old clients from
using the vulnerable renegotiation methods? If it's the last
you'll need to upgrade to 2.8+ to
I dont know if its an option, but i suggest have a look here :
multiple packages for postfix on centos 6
http://pkgs.org/search/postfix?type=name
or
https://solusipse.net/blog/posts/compiling-postfix-with-postgresql-support-on-centos-7/
Not for the postgresql, but just for the upgrade of post
Hi all,
I just upgraded a server from Debian Wheezy to Jessie, and moved the
system partition to a new, bigger harddisk. Now I am having trouble with
the permissions of the /var/spool/postfix/private folder.
As far as I can see all folder permissions throughout the whole system
are the same as be
Robert Senger:
> Hi all,
>
> I just upgraded a server from Debian Wheezy to Jessie, and moved the
> system partition to a new, bigger harddisk. Now I am having trouble with
> the permissions of the /var/spool/postfix/private folder.
To fix Postfix file permissions:
# postfix set-permissions
If
for the policy-spf, check this one.
https://bananasfk.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/policyd-spf-in-debian-8-fix/
Greetz,
Louis
>-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
>Van: robert.sen...@lists.microscopium.de
>[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] Namens Robert Senger
>Verzonden: dinsdag 18 august
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:36 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2015, at 10:44 , Tom Browder wrote:
>> Okay, then I guess I should pick one of the virtual hosts as the domain name
>> and add some arbitrary host then. Does that mean it is then a "real" server
>> and should not be treated as a virtu
Wietse Venema:
> Robert Senger:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just upgraded a server from Debian Wheezy to Jessie, and moved the
> > system partition to a new, bigger harddisk. Now I am having trouble with
> > the permissions of the /var/spool/postfix/private folder.
>
> To fix Postfix file permissions:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:55:00 -0500
Tom Browder wrote:
> So how should the DNS records look? Can anyone give me the exact
> settings for the A, CNAME, MX, and PTR records for A.tld and B.tld
> (and any other suggested records)?
>
this is not the best question on this list.
google will guide you
This is pretty common.
The DNS does not matter all that much as long as people can find the MX
server for each domain.
The MX record has to point to an A or CNAME that maps to the actual
machine where your main service (Postfix) runs.
The A or CNAME can be in a different domain as long as that i
Ron Wheeler wrote:
> The MX record has to point to an A or CNAME that maps to the actual machine
> where your main service (Postfix) runs.
IIRC the MX should not point to a CNAME as target host to make proper loop
detection work. Or am I wrong?
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-5.1:
On 08/18/2015 06:49 AM, Koko Wijatmoko wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:55:00 -0500
Tom Browder wrote:
So how should the DNS records look? Can anyone give me the exact
settings for the A, CNAME, MX, and PTR records for A.tld and B.tld
(and any other suggested records)?
this is not the best qu
Hai,
... its all about correct DNS settings, so dont say that does not matter..
Best is you read :
rfc2821 section-3.6 and 4.1.1.1 ( and 10.3 thank you Michael good read, i
forgot that one.. )
rfc5321 section 2.3.5
in short..
make sure your hostname has an A or record and PTR record.
Hi,
I'm trying to match a pattern in a header_checks pcre file and can't
figure out why it's not matching. In /etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre,
I have:
/^From:.*exampleuser@gmail\.com$/ REJECT
# postmap -q 'exampleuser' pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
#
postconf -m shows pcre among the avail
El 2015-08-18 16:15, Alex escribió:
Hi,
I'm trying to match a pattern in a header_checks pcre file and can't
figure out why it's not matching. In /etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre,
I have:
/^From:.*exampleuser@gmail\.com$/ REJECT
# postmap -q 'exampleuser' pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
#
El 18/08/15 a las 16:15, Alex escribió:
Hi,
I'm trying to match a pattern in a header_checks pcre file and can't
figure out why it's not matching. In /etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre,
I have:
/^From:.*exampleuser@gmail\.com$/ REJECT
# postmap -q 'exampleuser' pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
- On 18 Aug, 2015, at 17:15, Alex mysqlstud...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm trying to match a pattern in a header_checks pcre file and can't
> figure out why it's not matching. In /etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre,
> I have:
>
> /^From:.*exampleuser@gmail\.com$/ REJECT
That regular expression matches
El 2015-08-18 17:33, Alex escribió:
Hi,
If that is the preferred method, what is the real purpose of
header_checks? Solely for Subject and To?
Even more useful than checking the Subject, I use header_checks to check
some properties on attachments. In fact, I've picked Wietse's example on
th
Hello,
I just want to inform you about a program that is able to read all
email-adresses from MS-Exchange or Novell Groupwise and creates
Postfix lookup tables with those results.
(it uses the LDAP protocol, so it's easy to implement other ldap-based
backends)
It creates following mapfiles:
rel
On 18 Aug 2015, at 11:43, Nicolás wrote:
If you plan blocking incoming e-mails based on the "From" header,
probably check_sender_access is more suitable in this case:
This is incorrect. check_sender_access does not operate on any header,
it operates on the SMTP envelope sender address.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 11:44:03AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
>> Okay, then I guess I should pick one of the virtual hosts as the domain
>> name and add some arbitrary host then. Does that mean it is then a "real"
>> server and should not b
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 21:55, Tom Browder wrote:
>> Okay, now assuming my server IP address is 1.2.3.4, do the following
>> DNS records appear reasonable?
>
> No. There should be just one PTR record for an IP address.
Okay, I assume then that this s
On 18 Aug 2015, at 21:55, Tom Browder wrote:
> Okay, now assuming my server IP address is 1.2.3.4, do the following
> DNS records appear reasonable?
No. There should be just one PTR record for an IP address.
On 18 Aug 2015, at 22:06, Tom Browder wrote:
> Okay, I assume then that this should be the only PTR record:
>
> 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR B.tld.
Yes. Provided of course B.tld is The One True Hostname for your server.
BTW, you will get on a lot better if your postings used the actual IP add
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 22:06, Tom Browder wrote:
>
>> Okay, I assume then that this should be the only PTR record:
>>
>> 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR B.tld.
>
> Yes. Provided of course B.tld is The One True Hostname for your server.
It is!
> BTW,
Hi,
I have been able to implement feature in the Postfix server so that I can
allow specific group of people to send emails outside the local domain like
gmail.com and other users can not.
My Server's information is given below,
OS - Debian Wheezy
Postfix server version is 2.9.6-2
I have tried
Okay, thanks to all. I moved the milter sockets away from the private/
folder to var/run//.sock, and everything works now with
the correct permissions after "postfix set-permissions".
Robert
Am Dienstag, den 18.08.2015, 13:41 +0200 schrieb Robert Senger:
> Hi all,
>
> I just upgraded a server f
27 matches
Mail list logo
