Hi all,
I am sending a bunch of emails to a set of target domains.
I see that many of them are all served by the same MTA and this MTA is
limiting my sending because of course it sees too many sending at a time
from me.
I know I could just use the transport map for all of these target domains
and
I also receive a fair amount of spam where the HELO is either my domain
name or my public-facing IP address. I block this as an additional
precaution.
smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
check_helo_access hash:/volume1/Config/postfix/helo_access,
. . .
/volume1/Config/postfix/he
Marco Pizzoli:
> Hi all,
> I am sending a bunch of emails to a set of target domains.
> I see that many of them are all served by the same MTA and this MTA is
> limiting my sending because of course it sees too many sending at a time
> from me.
>
> I know I could just use the transport map for all
Hello Wietse,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Marco Pizzoli:
> > Hi all,
> > I am sending a bunch of emails to a set of target domains.
> > I see that many of them are all served by the same MTA and this MTA is
> > limiting my sending because of course it sees too many se
Hello all
We have a recently set up a dual homed VM running Postfix. We set up
policy based routing to allow for each of the two NICs to have a different
IP with different subnets. This server is an SMTP Relay server. Will
postfix work properly with a dual homed VM? Or will the postfix service
on
Wietse:
> At this time, only the Postfix SMTP client knows remote MTA name/IP
> address information, not the Postfix scheduler. You can use global
> settings such as per-transport process limits or rate delays, or
> kernel-based traffic shaping.
Marco Pizzoli:
> Thank you very much for your answer
Sean Son:
> In our main.cf file , inet_interfaces is set to all.
Then, Postfix will not bind to one nic. See the inet_interfaces
discussion in the postconf(5) manpages for multi-homed firewalls.
A better solution for multi-homed firewalls is to leave inet_interfaces
at the default value a
Chris:
> All,
>
> which error is sent to the client, especially in stress situations, when
> smtpd_hard_error_limit is hit?
421, independent of server (over)load. The hard error limit may be reached
when many addresses are subscribed to a legitimate mailing list.
Wiete
On Nov 17, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Voytek wrote:
> Nov 17 12:56:47 emu postfix/smtpd[16381]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail-ua0-f170.google.com[209.85.217.170]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
> Client host [209.85.217.170] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Currently
> Sending Spam See: http://www.sorbs
On 11/18/16 14:43, @lbutlr wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Voytek wrote:
>> Nov 17 12:56:47 emu postfix/smtpd[16381]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>> mail-ua0-f170.google.com[209.85.217.170]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
>> Client host [209.85.217.170] blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Current
dear postfix users,
I use a regexp header_checks file with REJECT rules
at the end and some PASS exceptions on top
while the REJECT rules seem to work fine, the
PASS lines like this one "/From.*windtools.gr/ PASS"
seem to generate warning like this in tha mail log:
Nov 18 17:09:38 remora postfix
On Nov 18, 2016, at 1:58 PM, theodore.andrea...@windtools.gr wrote:
> dear postfix users,
>
> I use a regexp header_checks file with REJECT rules
> at the end and some PASS exceptions on top
>
> while the REJECT rules seem to work fine, the
> PASS lines like this one "/From.*windtools.gr/ PASS"
>
> On Nov 18, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>
> On 11/18/16 14:43, @lbutlr wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Voytek wrote:
>>> Nov 17 12:56:47 emu postfix/smtpd[16381]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
>>> mail-ua0-f170.google.com[209.85.217.170]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
>>> Cl
On Nov 18, 2016, at 4:12 AM, Allen Coates wrote:
>example.comREJECT
>12.34.56.78REJECT
It’s bad form to use someone else’s IP (or domain) as an example.
12.34.56.789 is a much better sample IP since it’s invalid.
Hi,
I have configured the TLS,
when I receive the mail such as yahoo mail,
the mail content is transferred encoding like base64.
When I send mail to yahoo account or others,
the content is clear text,
how to encrypt the content in an acceptable encoding to other mail servers?
@lbutlr:
> On Nov 18, 2016, at 4:12 AM, Allen Coates =
> wrote:
> >example.comREJECT
> >12.34.56.78REJECT
>
> It=E2=80=99s bad form to use someone else=E2=80=99s IP (or domain) as an =
> example.
>
> 12.34.56.789 is a much better sample IP since it=E2=80=99s invalid.
In examples
My advice would be to send a test message to a yahoo account you own. Then reply to yourself. Read the headers and the maillog. Something useful should indicating the problem should pop up.You may have to change
Yes, I had sent the messages to myself, so I found the problem.
The header from yahoo mail server to my server shows:
Message-ID: <1986254504.2695776.147946658...@mail.yahoo.com> Subject:
linoookk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Th
On 11/18/2016 08:14 PM, vod vos wrote:
Yes, I had sent the messages to myself, so I found the problem.
The header from yahoo mail server to my server shows:
Message-ID: <1986254504.2695776.147946658...@mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: linoookk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
C
Check to make sure TLS logging is enabled. Then look at maillog. (I don't have the parameters memorized like the list gurus.)
Hello,
I am looking at a system where SpamAssassin is called out from the
delivery agent. I know there will be a difference here in terms of the
envelope information but I'm not familiar enough to know the pitfalls of
this versus calling SA from the postfix content_filter.
Specifically, I be
Best to check both directions. (You to yahoo and yahoo to you) you can read
headers on yahoo if you poke around.
Or am I being paranoid? I assume one direction uses the yahoo cert and the
other direction uses your cert.
Original Message
From: Alice Wonder
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 8:
Hi postfixers
I changed this network to "real" IPV6 (before I used 6TO4 tunnelling).
Now, every host and every program (including postfix) rushes to use
IPV6. But there are problems with postfix: on one Host
(postfix-2.10.1-6.el7.x86_64) I had in the logs:
Nov 19 06:13:01 tico postfix/postfix
> mynetworks = 192.168.97.0/28, 127.0.0.0/8, [::1]/128, [fe80::]/64, [fec0::]/64
Just delete [fe80::]/64 and [fec0::]/64.
No client will use link local and site local address of your server
therefore listening on these is absolute unnecessary.
Gabor
> > mynetworks = 192.168.97.0/28, 127.0.0.0/8, [::1]/128, [fe80::]/64,
> > [fec0::]/64
>
> Just delete [fe80::]/64 and [fec0::]/64.
> No client will use link local and site local address of your server
> therefore listening on these is absolute unnecessary.
^
Eeeer... _filter
25 matches
Mail list logo
