|Hello list.|
|
|
|I included Spamhaus XBL in client restrictions for my server. An error
is supplied to the individual/bot that is trying to connect that looks
like the follow:
|
|Transcript of session follows. Out: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
Client host [57.152.56.248] blocked using
On June 22, 2024 12:55:32 PM GMT+02:00, Cody Millard via Postfix-users
wrote:
>|Hello list.|
>
>|
>|
>
>|I included Spamhaus XBL in client restrictions for my server. An error is
>supplied to the individual/bot that is trying to connect that looks like the
>follow:
>
>|
>
>|Transcript of ses
Cody Millard via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-22 12:55:
You can see my dqs key in the error send to the client. Is this a
problem? If so, how could I remove the DQS key from the response?
your postfix conf reveal it
postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map =
texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply
On 2024-06-22 at 06:55:32 UTC-0400 (Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:55:32 -0500)
Cody Millard via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello list.
I included Spamhaus XBL in client restrictions for my server. An error
is supplied to the individual/bot that is trying to connect that looks
like the foll
Cody Millard via Postfix-users:
> |Hello list.|
>
> |
> |
>
> |I included Spamhaus XBL in client restrictions for my server. An error
> is supplied to the individual/bot that is trying to connect that looks
> like the follow:
>
> |
>
> |Transcript of session follows. Out:
554 5.7.1 S
On 2024-06-22 at 15:19:42 UTC-0400 (Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:19:42 -0400
(EDT))
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
[...]
The rbl_reply_maps are searched with the domain specified with
reject_rbl_client.
That includes the optional "=address" portion, added in Postfix
2.8, but
Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
> On 2024-06-22 at 15:19:42 UTC-0400 (Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:19:42 -0400
> (EDT))
> Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
> [...]
> > The rbl_reply_maps are searched with the domain specified with
> > reject_rbl_client.
> >
> > That includes the o
On 2024-06-22 at 16:58:26 UTC-0400 (Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:58:26 -0400
(EDT))
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
On 2024-06-22 at 15:19:42 UTC-0400 (Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:19:42 -0400
(EDT))
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> The rbl_reply_maps are searched with the domain specified with
> reject_rbl_client.
>
> That includes the optional "=address" portion, added in Postfix
> 2.8, but that was not added to the much older rbl_reply_maps
> documentation.
I have added documentation fo
Bill Cole via Postfix-users:
> > Absolutely. If you specify
> >
> > reject_rbl_client string-with-complex-syntax
> >
> > Then the rbl_reply_maps seach key will be that
> > string-with-complex-syntax.
>
> OK. Right now I have multiple items like this in
> smtpd_recipient_retrictions
>
>
I know how to setup postfix + opensrs for email forwarding. But google "why
email forwarding is a bad idea" will get a lot of results. Should we not enable
forwarding in now days? Thanks
Jeff Pang
jeffp...@aol.com
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- pos
Jeff Pang via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-23 00:54:
I know how to setup postfix + opensrs for email forwarding. But google
"why email forwarding is a bad idea" will get a lot of results. Should
we not enable forwarding in now days? Thanks
postfix can easely be setup as sasl client so it by
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|Jeff Pang via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-23 00:54:
|> I know how to setup postfix + opensrs for email forwarding. But google
|> "why email forwarding is a bad idea" will get a lot of results. Should
|> we not enable forwarding in now days? Th
13 matches
Mail list logo
