> On 2016-02-14 18:34, Bill Cole wrote:
>
>> are there any legitimate (non-spam) senders, that would be blocked by
>> reject_unknown_client_hostname ?
>
> Do you consider Microsoft's Office365 to be "legitimate?"
>
> They send substantial non-spam, yet many of their output IPs have PTR
> addresse
I'm trying to set up a mail relay for a specific host with Postfix, with
little success:
I've got this:
mynetworks = 88.198.58.179/32 127.0.0.0/8 134.2.186.48/32
u-186-ls048.wi50.uni-tuebingen.de
88.x is the local host, 134.x is the host I'm trying to set up the
relay for, as is the host name.
Yes, there is a reason.
If they have a large amount of virtualized servers set up using wildcarding,
like:
*.123.123.123.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mailservers.office365.com
Its of course not possible to add the corresponding forward record, because
that would create a pretty large forward zone, especial
Oops, I meant 123.123.123.72
Just a bit tired here in the morning.
But what I wanted to say is that Microsoft is a extremely large internet
corporation, actually the largest, I think they own most IP-adresses too, so
what they do need to scale well.
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: owner-p
On 2016-02-14 16:39, Michael Sperber wrote:
I'm trying to set up a mail relay for a specific host with Postfix,
with
little success:
I've got this:
mynetworks = 88.198.58.179/32 127.0.0.0/8 134.2.186.48/32
u-186-ls048.wi50.uni-tuebingen.de
Hostnames in mynetworks are prone to errors when you h
Michael Sperber:
> Feb 14 15:32:32 deinprogramm postfix/submission/smtpd[61536]: match_hostaddr:
> 134.2.186.48 ~? 134.2.186.48/32
> Feb 14 15:32:32 deinprogramm postfix/submission/smtpd[61536]:
> match_list_match: permit_mynetworks: no match
That is unexpected. Did you compile Postfix by hand,
Hello.
See: http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html
Per the table search order, user accounts need to be listed first,
before the domain
IE:
us...@domain.com relay:[smtp1.server.com]
domain.com relay:[smtp.server.com]
See: Postfix users
Zalezny Niezalezny wrote:
Hi All,
by defa
Its working for me. Thank You very much!
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Matthew McGehrin wrote:
> Hello.
>
> See: http://www.postfix.org/transport.5.html
>
> Per the table search order, user accounts need to be listed first, before
> the domain
>
> IE:
>
> us...@domain.com relay:[smtp1
Hi!
We have just been experiencing a power outage in the result of which our
mail server with postfix did come back up fine but our LDAP server did
not come back up. As a result emails to valid users (administrated via
LDAP) was rejected with a permanent "User unknown" error.
I was suprised that a
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Michael Sperber:
>> Feb 14 15:32:32 deinprogramm postfix/submission/smtpd[61536]:
>> match_hostaddr: 134.2.186.48 ~? 134.2.186.48/32
>> Feb 14 15:32:32 deinprogramm postfix/submission/smtpd[61536]:
>> match_list_match: permit_mynetworks: no match
>
Michael Sperber:
>
> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>
> > Michael Sperber:
> >> Feb 14 15:32:32 deinprogramm postfix/submission/smtpd[61536]:
> >> match_hostaddr: 134.2.186.48 ~? 134.2.186.48/32
> >> Feb 14 15:32:32 deinprogramm postfix/submission/smtpd[61536]:
> >> match_list_mat
Lutz J?nicke:
> Hi!
>
> We have just been experiencing a power outage in the result of which our
> mail server with postfix did come back up fine but our LDAP server did
> not come back up. As a result emails to valid users (administrated via
> LDAP) was rejected with a permanent "User unknown" er
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Lutz J?nicke:
>> Hi!
>>
>> We have just been experiencing a power outage in the result of which our
>> mail server with postfix did come back up fine but our LDAP server did
>> not come back up. As a result emails to valid users (administrated via
>> LDAP) was rejected with a
On 15.02.2016 17:26, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Lutz J?nicke:
>> Hi!
>>
>> We have just been experiencing a power outage in the result of which our
>> mail server with postfix did come back up fine but our LDAP server did
>> not come back up. As a result emails to valid users (administrated via
>> LDAP
Lutz J?nicke:
> > For example, with the default nsswitch.conf action of "unavail=continue",
> > the library will continue with the next source, instead of reporting
> > the error condition immediately. There may be similar features with sssd.
>
> It seems that nsswitch.conf may be the reason for t
I'm struggling finding a postfix expert, any contact to suggest?
Thank you very much.
What are you trying to achieve? There's plenty of experts here (not me
I hasten to add!!)
On 15/02/2016 8:52 pm, Roman Doe wrote:
> I'm struggling finding a postfix expert, any contact to suggest?
>
> Thank you very much.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
What you need?
Le 15 févr. 2016 4:35 PM, "Danny Horne" a écrit :
> What are you trying to achieve? There's plenty of experts here (not me
> I hasten to add!!)
>
> On 15/02/2016 8:52 pm, Roman Doe wrote:
> > I'm struggling finding a postfix expert, any contact to suggest?
> >
> > Thank you very m
--On Monday, February 15, 2016 5:51 PM +0100 Michael Ströder
wrote:
Example: When a fresh OpenLDAP replica during initialization is not fully
functional yet the contextCSN attribute in the root entry of the database
is not present. Would be nice to have LDAP map parameters to define a
health-c
--On Monday, February 15, 2016 11:26 AM -0500 Wietse Venema
wrote:
But the basic check after getpwnam_r() works only if everything
else in the chain returns an error status instead of "not found".
That may include nsswitch.conf, pam_ldap, pam_sss, sssd, sssd.conf,
and so on. It is very easy f
I need to assess the feasibility of the email hub I want to set-up.
It must have specific and quite uncommon features:
- Remailing (rewrite envelops and headers from remote SMTP clients)
(anonymous remailer, kind of like craigslist 2-way relay)
- ACL: blacklists per users
- Dynamic recipients
- Li
Ps: The server must be able to scale (50 000+ users at the first stage.
Potentially million+ users later stage).
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Roman Doe wrote:
> I need to assess the feasibility of the email hub I want to set-up.
>
> It must have specific and quite uncommon features:
> - Rem
Have you purchased some textbooks on Postfix?
That is a good start to identifying the processes that are available out
of the box.
It will certainly tell you how to attach your custom processes to the
main postfix flows.
They will also tell you about ACLs, rewriting, recipient mailboxs and
de
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Here's a test with a host with /32 patterns in mynetworks:
>
> # postconf mynetworks smtpd_recipient_restrictions smtpd_relay_restrictions
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.1/32 192.168.1.2/32 192.168.122.1/32 168.100.189.7/32
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:18:54 +0100
Michael Sperber wrote:
> > Logging:
> >
> > Feb 15 10:39:23 wzv postfix/smtpd[10244]: match_hostaddr: mynetworks:
> > 192.168.1.2 ~? 192.168.1.2/32
> > Feb 15 10:39:23 wzv postfix/smtpd[10244]: match_list_match:
> > permit_mynetworks: no match
> > Feb 15 10:39
25 matches
Mail list logo
