On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 03:07:54PM +0200, benoit wrote:
> But my client can't connect . the client is my android phone
Sun Sep 22 18:19:56 GMT+02:00 2019 Viktor Dukhovni :
But the client gives up immediately after seeing the server's EHLO
response. Probably, it does not like the SASL AUTH mec
On 23/09/19 1:24 PM, subscription1 wrote:
I've been running my own Postfix (Dovecot, MySQL, Rspamd) server thanks
to these instructions
(https://thomas-leister.de/en/mailserver-debian-stretch/ ) for more than
a year without any issues.
I'm using a paid service (Mail Reflector) to handle the t
On 22.09.19 15:35, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
I would like some suggestions on how to get less spam, I will paste my
configuration at the end of the mail.
Maybe somebody with a nice setup could post his/her setup?
use postscreen, with weighed blacklists.
Use spamass-milter or amavisd-milter with
On Sep 22, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> I think it is inadvisable to use reject_unknown_client_hostname
Yes, you will lose legitimate mail with this, but in my limited experience it
is all junk (marketing mail, remailer services, and the like; not technically
spam), and a lot of sp
Op 22-09-19 om 17:59 schreef Dominic Raferd:
> I have been tweaking my settings for the last three years largely
> based on advice from this list. I give below my (slightly simplified)
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions settings for unauthenticated connections
> (suggestions for improvement very welco
I have a new IP address of unknown quality (188.183.101.186).
I am therefore for the time being using an external smarthost. But I
would like to test direct mail to various places by using a specific
sender address with no disturbance of other users.
So I have tried the following:
root@nus
> On Sep 23, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>
> I have tried the following:
>
>> relayhost = [smarthost.arrowmail.co.uk]:587
>> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps =
>> cdb:/etc/postfix/sender_default_transport
>>
>> # cat /etc/postfix/sender_default_transport
>> jd-dir...@dybdal.d
On 2019-09-23 22:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
As documented in transport(5), when a transport table entry does not
specify an explicit nexthop, it uses the extant (default) nexthop
for the recipient. In your case that's specified via "relayhost".
Of course! Thank you very much!
--
Jesper Dybda
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:15:05PM +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> On 2019-09-23 22:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > As documented in transport(5), when a transport table entry does not
> > specify an explicit nexthop, it uses the extant (default) nexthop
> > for the recipient. In your case that's sp
