Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
this and whose configuration it is, mine or theirs?
postfix-p25/smtpd[18149]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smout-245174.nsmailserv.com[202.162.245.174]: 450 4.7.1
: Sender address rejected: Access denied;
from= to=
proto=ESMTP helo=
On Thu, May 5, 2016 11:34, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
> this and whose configuration it is, mine or theirs?
>
> postfix-p25/smtpd[18149]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> smout-245174.nsmailserv.com[202.162.245.174]: 450 4.7.1
> : Sender
On Thu, May 5, 2016 12:01, Gao wrote:
> try use "~all" instead of "-all" in your SPF txt record.
>
We are not the sender. We are the recipient. Our SPF record does not
bear on this issue insofar as I can see. In any case, our SPF TXT RR
already includes ~all, not -all.
--
*** e-Mail
try use "~all" instead of "-all" in your SPF txt record.
On 16-05-05 08:57 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 11:34, James B. Byrne wrote:
Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
this and whose configuration it is, mine or theirs?
postfix-p25/smtpd[18149
Am 5. Mai 2016 17:34:36 MESZ, schrieb "James B. Byrne" :
>Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
>this and whose configuration it is, mine or theirs?
>
>postfix-p25/smtpd[18149]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>smout-245174.nsmailserv.com[202.162.245.174]: 450 4.7.1
>: Sen
On 5/5/2016 10:34 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
> this and whose configuration it is, mine or theirs?
>
> postfix-p25/smtpd[18149]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> smout-245174.nsmailserv.com[202.162.245.174]: 450 4.7.1
> : Sender addre
On Thu, May 5, 2016 12:11, Christian Kivalo wrote:
>
>
> Am 5. Mai 2016 17:34:36 MESZ, schrieb "James B. Byrne"
> :
>>Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
>>this and whose configuration it is, mine or theirs?
>>
>>postfix-p25/smtpd[18149]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>
Am 5. Mai 2016 18:30:40 MESZ, schrieb "James B. Byrne" :
>
>On Thu, May 5, 2016 12:11, Christian Kivalo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 5. Mai 2016 17:34:36 MESZ, schrieb "James B. Byrne"
>> :
>>>Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
>>>this and whose configuration it is, mine or
On Thu, May 5, 2016 12:37, Christian Kivalo wrote:
>
> There it is: lymanworldwide.com uses nameservices provided by
> name-services.com
>
Thanks, that is it. I suppose we will just have to explicitly permit
them in. Not that I approve of their choice of registrars (enom).
Thanks for the help.
Is there an address rewriting step that affects only virtual_alias_domains?
I tried the following:
virtual_alias_domains = nottheoilrig.com
virtual_alias_maps = static:nottheoilrig
expecting to deliver all virtual_alias_domains mail to one user,
and I was surprised when ALL mail was deliver
Jack Bates:
> Is there an address rewriting step that affects only virtual_alias_domains?
No, there is no address rewriting for virtual_alias_domains only
(or for relay_domains, or for virtual_mailbox_domains).
> I tried the following:
>
>virtual_alias_domains = nottheoilrig.com
>virtual
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 12:04:09PM -0700, Jack Bates wrote:
> Is there an address rewriting step that affects only virtual_alias_domains?
No.
> The following achieved my desired behavior:
>
> virtual_alias_domains = nottheoilrig.com
> virtual_alias_maps = inline:{ @nottheoilrig.com=nottheoi
On 5 May 2016, at 11:57, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 11:34, James B. Byrne wrote:
Can anyone clue me in on what configuration issue might be causing
this and whose configuration it is, mine or theirs?
postfix-p25/smtpd[18149]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
smout-245174.nsmailserv.co
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:24:49PM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> >I discovered this issue in their DNS with respect to SPF:
> >
> >;; ANSWER SECTION:
> >lymanworldwide.com. 1800IN TXT "v=spf1
> >include:netcore.co.in -all"
> >lymanworldwide.com. 1800IN TXT "v=spf1
> >
On 5 May 2016, at 22:24, Bill Cole wrote:
[ blah blah blah ]
OR: I was entirely wrong about the broken SPF records being the cause of
that rejection.
Noel & Christian were right in pointing you at the access maps. You
MIGHT also run into the SPF issue after exempting that sender from the
sh
15 matches
Mail list logo