Hi,
i want to track bad login attemps on our mail server running on postfix at
redhat.
when i look to our syslog messages i see
mail saslauthd[5345]: do_auth : auth failure: [user=]
[service=smtp] [realm=our domain] [mech=ldap] [reason=Unknown]
lines,
is it technically posibbl
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:25:53 +0200
Selcuk Yazar wrote:
> i want to track bad login attemps on our mail server running on postfix at
> redhat.
>
> when i look to our syslog messages i see
>
> mail saslauthd[5345]: do_auth : auth failure: [user=]
> [service=smtp] [realm=our domain
Thank you Koko for warning , hopelessly i try to my chance :(
but i found this after ,i sent email
"...From a cursory inspection of lib/pwcheck.c, saslauthd does not get
passed
any client IP information and cannot log it or forward it to pam..."
selcuk
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Koko Wij
Q1.
Already in my master.cf I have
smtp inet n - n - 1 postscreen
#smtp inet n - n - - smtpd -vv
smtpd pass - - n - - smtpd
dnsblog unix - - n - 0 dnsblog
tl
Robert Chalmers:
> Q1.
>
> Already in my master.cf I have
>
> smtp inet ...
> #smtp inet ...
> smtp unix ...
>
> However, the set up for spamassassin requires another smtp line.
>
> smtp inet ...
> So are they mutually exclusive ? or can I use it without breaking postfix
Hai,
I run this on a debian Jessie, postfix 2.11 (all debian packages )
Route for me is like this.
-> postscreen -> policy-weight -> policy-spf -> clamsmtp (->
-> spamassassin) -> user
A1.
I have in main.cfg
content_filter = clamsmtp:127.0.0.1:10025
A2. Yes, you
Selcuk Yazar:
> Thank you Koko for warning , hopelessly i try to my chance :(
>
> but i found this after ,i sent email
>
> "...From a cursory inspection of lib/pwcheck.c, saslauthd does not get
> passed
> any client IP information and cannot log it or forward it to pam..."
Postfix currently send
We've got a postfix mail server running postscreen that is configured to make
use of the postscreen_dnsbl_whitelist_threshold feature. The postfix version
is 3.0.3. Things have been working really well for the last 6 months, or so.
However, we have recently discovered an issue where it seems
On 2 Dec 2015, at 10:42, Bryan K. Walton wrote:
We've got a postfix mail server running postscreen that is configured
to make use of the postscreen_dnsbl_whitelist_threshold feature. The
postfix version is 3.0.3. Things have been working really well for
the last 6 months, or so. However, we
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:28:33PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> >Questions:
> >1. Why is this message getting a 450 message? Is the outlook mail server
> >speaking out of turn here?
>
> Since you didn't bother providing 'postconf -n' output, which would provide
> useful clues, we are left with making
On 2 Dec 2015, at 12:28, Bill Cole wrote:
On 2 Dec 2015, at 10:42, Bryan K. Walton wrote:
We've got a postfix mail server running postscreen that is configured
to make use of the postscreen_dnsbl_whitelist_threshold feature. The
postfix version is 3.0.3. Things have been working really well
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:49:05PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> Alternative (and I think better) random guess: you've enabled one or more
> "after 220 server greeting" test. See the postscreen man page for the
> consequences of such configuration and note that there's no law requiring
> retry delivery
On 2 Dec 2015, at 12:48, Bryan K. Walton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:28:33PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
Questions:
1. Why is this message getting a 450 message? Is the outlook mail
server
speaking out of turn here?
Since you didn't bother providing 'postconf -n' output, which would
prov
In
/usr/local/bin/spamfilter.sh there are a number of options with -T in place.
i.e.
CAUGHT_OUTPUT=`${SPAMASSASSIN} -4 -x -E -s $MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE -T
$THRESHOLD_OFFSET`
xxx
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bryan K. Walton
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:49:05PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> > Alternative (and I think better) random guess: you've enabled one or more
> > "after 220 server greeting" test. See the postscreen man page for the
> > consequences of such conf
On 2 Dec 2015, at 12:54, Bryan K. Walton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:49:05PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
Alternative (and I think better) random guess: you've enabled one or
more
"after 220 server greeting" test. See the postscreen man page for the
consequences of such configuration and note
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:55:01PM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> My mistake: I didn't look carefully enough at what
> postscreen_dnsbl_whitelist_threshold is supposed to do. Sorry for the
> rapid-fire noise.
>
> Theory: Your 8 DNSBL lookups are not all completing fast enough for
> postscreen to make a
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:10:27AM -0800, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> At the risk of sounding spammy for my latest pet project, Bryan's use case
> is exactly the type of issue an SPF-based whitelist for known senders (such
> as outlook.com) would fix.
>
> Bryan: grab the postwhite script (https://githu
18 matches
Mail list logo
