On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:14:26 +0200 Tolga wrote:
>Hello,
>
>For an e-mail not to fall into spam category, the sourcing server has to
>have SPF record I think, or so I've been told. How do I check whether it
>has a SPF record or not?
>
Oh dear, no.
You might want to reject mail that fails SPF che
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:40:45 -0500 ja...@monsterjam.org wrote:
>> The following requires Postfix 2.5 or later:
>>
>> /etc/postfix/main.cf:
>> # Deliver all mail via the "smtp" transport in master.cf.
>> # Use [] to suppress MX lookup.
>> relayhost = [mail.example.com]
>> default_tra
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:47:35 -0200 Márcio Luciano Donada
wrote:
>Hi list,
>I am using debian etch and postfix and then using the
>/usr/lib/postfix/policyd, but with the high traffic of e-mails in recent
>days I have had problems even had to disable it. I wonder what you are
>used to check the SPF
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:51:02 -0600 Chris Cameron wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
> wrote:
>> Chris Cameron wrote:
>>> I'm using spf-milter-python, which uses an access map for refining the
>>> SPF policy.
>>>
>>> The file is formated as:
>>>
>>> SPF-Fail: RE
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:40:26 -0500 KLaM Postmaster
wrote:
>I am thinking of switching to Ubuntu 8.10 LTS server, however when I
>look at the Postfix configuration it seems somewhat odd.
>I don't want to start a flame war, but I would like to hear what people
>think about things like "dynamicmaps"
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:40:37 -0400 Jorey Bump wrote:
>Sasa wrote, at 03/13/2009 11:35 AM:
>
>> On current mail server I have:
>>
>> [r...@mail ~]# file /etc/sasldb2
>> /etc/sasldb2: Berkeley DB (Hash, version 8, native byte-order)
>>
>> on new mail server I have:
>>
>> [r...@mail ~]# file /etc/
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:48:01 -0700 Asai wrote:
>LuKreme wrote:
>> On 26-Mar-2009, at 13:57, Asai wrote:
>>> My apologies, I hope this is of assistance.
>>
>> LOGS of the eudora user tring to send to gmail.
>>
>>
>> And don't top-post.
>>
>>
> From /var/log/maillog, one example of the problem:
>
>M
On Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:51:32 pm junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
> Yahoo has ulterior motives? They wish to push their domain keys.
>
> Others probably likewise have ulterior motives.
>
> Do you also oppose SPF, and if so what is your motives?
>
Please stop. This is offtopic for this list
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote:
> Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it.
> Problem exist with Postfix on it. They've said to address it with
> Postfix. I personally think the specific problems are more of how
> Ubuntu handles Postfix poorly. On
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 15:13:00 Phil Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:00, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote:
> >> Ubuntu works reasonably OK with everything else I've used on it.
> >> Problem exist with
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 15:14:08 Gary Chambers wrote:
> > No. Clearly not the case. Ubuntu is an example which interferes with
> > Postfix. I'm trying to determine if others are more or less so. I
> > suspect at least some surely must be less so.
>
> Why not simply avoid whatever hassles y
On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 15:22:22 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 15:13:00 Phil Howard wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:00, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 14:42:29 Phil Howard wrote:
> > >> Ubuntu works reasonabl
On Friday, August 06, 2010 10:35:45 pm junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
> patch policyd-spf (0.8.0) to support rejection of no SPF record.
This is off topic for postfix-users. Please file a bug with the patch and we
can
discuss it in an appropriate venue:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pypolicyd-s
"donovan jeffrey j" wrote:
>
>On Aug 8, 2010, at 2:16 PM,
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.openspf.org/
>>
>
>thanks for the reply,
>since this is not postfix related. I have to go off list. but before I go
>
>i get a little confused when reading the SPF docs. It seems to easy.
>from what i understa
"Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz" wrote:
>Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 11/9/2010 8:39 AM, Lima Union wrote:
>
>>
>> clamav-milter operates on the message data, so all postfix
>> smtpd_*_restrictions -- which operate on the envelope -- will get a
>> chance to reject mail before the data is transmitted
"Patrick Ben Koetter" wrote:
>* Mark Alan :
>> > > Do you know any reliable Debian/Ubuntu repositories for the
>> > > newest Postfix 2.8?
>> >
>> > http://debian.incertum.net/
>>
>> Thank you, but the emphasis in my question was in 'reliable'.
>>
>> A quick diff between the 2.8 sources and p
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 09:02:09 am Christian Roessner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Postfix stable release 2.8.1 is available. This release fixes one
> > "signal 11" bug with SMTP server debug logging, and cleans up some
> > code and documentation.
>
> Ubuntu packages done.
>
> https://launchpad.n
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 09:33:35 am Christian Roessner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > - I dropped HP-UX patches from Debain, as they are useless in Ubuntu
> > > - I dropped chroot environment, as discussed lately on this list
> >
> > What to do about chrooting by default is a conversation we should
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:18:36 +0200 bsd wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am using two postfix server and quite often some misconfigured mail
>server are sending mail to the backup MX instead of the primary.
>Both server have postfix implemented using the 'classic' conf:
>
>in main.cf
>
>> smtpd_recipient_rest
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:39:06 -0500 John Peach wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:30:36 +0200
>Eero Volotinen wrote:
>
>>
>> > Centos 5.4 - while it looks like a good choice, there has been some
>> > political infighting going on recently which makes us a little
>> > nervous about its future. In addi
On Friday, March 25, 2011 05:35:01 pm Gary Smith wrote:
> Does anyone have a simple policy daemon written in Python they would be
> willing to share? I was looking at policy but that's overkill and it might
> require some tweaking just to support my tiny requirements.
>
> Gary Smith
Sure.
https:
On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 01:36:50 PM Bailey, Damian S. wrote:
> Hey all,
>
>
>
> I just updated by backup mail gateway (Postfix/Clam/SA/Amavis) to 2.8 to
> use postscreen.
>
You may be suffering from this bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/764096
a duplicate report:
https://bugs.launchpad
On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 02:14:40 PM Bailey, Damian S. wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> > [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 2:00 PM
> > To: postfix
I noticed this one while reading the document on postfix.org.
Scott K
--- MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html.orig 2011-06-08 22:53:34.647880630 -0400
+++ MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html 2011-06-08 22:54:01.103880784 -0400
@@ -420,7 +420,7 @@
Lines 1-2: With "authorized_submit_users = root", the
-superu
On Sunday, June 12, 2011 09:46:41 PM Janantha Marasinghe wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have installed clamav-milter on my postfix 2.7 which is running on
> ubuntu 10.04 server LTS. I have configured the config file where the
> socket is the clamav-milter.ctl but when postfix gets an e-mail it gives
> the
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:43:40 AM J4K wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Spamass-milter has stopped processing messages from Postfix. I have
> tested the milter socket and it works. To test that it worked I used :-
> http://www.itg.uiuc.edu/itg_software/milter_watch/ and Spamass-milter
> rejected
On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 05:16:50 PM Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 3:07 PM, ricardus1867 wrote:
> > I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 and I installed Postfix 2.8.4 from Christian
> > Roessner's PPA.
>
> I just went through the Debian 6.x Postfix 2.7.1 init script, and I'm
> sorry to say that it
On Saturday, August 20, 2011 02:55:28 PM Georg Sauthoff wrote:
...
> But the script copies the certificates to a wrong location - in my case to:
>
> /var/spool/postfix/etc/postfix/certs/etc/postfix/certs/
>
> Correct location would be:
>
> /var/spool/postfix/etc/postfix/certs/
>
> After
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:06:41 AM Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 05:28:40PM -0400, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> >> Running Postfix 2.8.2
> >>
> >> When I telnet smtp0.lightlink.com 25, and type 'help',
> >>
> >> it says unknown com
On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
...
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with
policyd? And if not, and I must install postfix-policyd-spf-python
or postfix-policyd-spf-perl which do you r
On 10/26/2011 10:44 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
On 26 October 2011 10:27, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On 10/26/2011 10:17 AM, Simon Brereton wrote:
...
So my obvious question to the list is - Can I get amavis to explicity
add a header with the SPF validity, and if not, can I do this with
policyd
On 11/03/2011 08:53 AM, David Southwell wrote:
Hi
Just trying to look at www.open-spf.org for some info about a problem and
found their server is down. Godaddy says the domain name has not been
renewed!!
openspf.org (and open-spf.org - they are the same) is down and we're
working on getting a
On 11/16/2011 01:01 PM, David Mehler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to get spf going on my arch postfix server. I'm wanting to
> get perl-policyd-spf going and am atempting to download the needed
> source. The issue is openspf.org appears down, anyone know why or if
> there's an alternative downlo
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:44:55 PM Marcelo Vieira wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question related with Postfix and SPF.
>
> I have a server configured to check SPF MTA. Two domains uses that MTA.
>
> When I receive an e-mail from outside (gmail / hotmail etc ...) the
> verification of
> SPF i
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>Am 10.03.2012 02:08, schrieb Nick Edwards:
>>> thelounge.net. 86400 IN SPF "v=spf1
>ip4:91.118.73.15
>>> ip4:91.118.73.20 ip4:91.118.73.17
>>> ip4:91.118.73.6 ip4:91.118.73.32 ip4:91.118.73.38 ip4:91.118.73.30
>>> ip4:91.118.73.1 ip4:89.207.144.27 -
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 07:46:09 PM Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 13.03.2012 17:37, schrieb Patrick Ben Koetter:
> > * Patrick Ben Koetter :
> >> * Wietse Venema :
> >>> Different sites have different needs, and perhaps it is an idea to
> >>> provide *multiple* submission service examples in mas
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>I'm testing the ubuntu12 64-bit beta, and had to make the following
>change
>to makedefs under the Linux.3 category. Just FYI:
>
>--- postfix-2.9.1.2z/makedefs.orig 2012-01-17 17:19:48.0
>-0800
>+++ postfix-2.9.1.2z/makedefs 2012-03-28 16:43:26.15407
On Thursday, April 05, 2012 02:27:05 PM Mike Jones! wrote:
> I've been following the postfix documentation, but still get no AUTH
> from the daemon.
What documentation specifically have you been following?
Scott K
On Thursday, April 05, 2012 02:32:32 PM Mike Jones! wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > What documentation specifically have you been following?
> >
> > Scott K
>
> Primarily http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#server_dovecot a
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:04:16 AM Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> After a recent Ubuntu server upgrade, the packaged versions of Postfix -
> using Ubuntu's "Precise" version, as well as the "security", "updates",
> and "backports" repositories - Postfix's TLS is broken with the known
> SSL version is
On Friday, June 29, 2012 06:18:03 PM Andrew Hodgson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I currently use a Mailman and Exim4 setup on Debian with Exim running
> the DKIM signing for outgoing mails. I have VERP set on in some
> lists, and on the lists doing VERP I am getting a very slow delivery
> time (around 10 min
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:34:31 AM Rich Carreiro wrote:
...
Snipping heavily to make it easier to follow.
> However, I am trying to migrate this over to an
> Ubuntu 12.04LTS system running Postfix 2.9.3
> and I just cannot get it to work. I'm doing everything
> the same, but postfix gives auth
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 02:36:40 PM Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 25.07.2012 14:30, schrieb Eric Smith:
> > Hi
> >
> > I have the following versions mailman 1:2.1.14-3 on postfix 2.9.1-5 and
> > Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
> >
> > My installation is for lists on virtual domains
> > NOT foobar.fruitcom.c
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 08:55:52 PM Eric Smith wrote:
> Thanks Robert (Scott)
>
> I have upgraded, checked and followed the Ubuntu docs.
> transport in master.cf corrected (I had a typo that gave the
> error with the user expansion), now it is like this;
>
> [root@pepper ~] $ grep -A1 mailman
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:51:32 AM Feel Zhou wrote:
> Hello, My friend
>
> how can I set SPF ( not greylist ) in postfix and DNS Server
>
> which Document I need to read ?
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> TOM
For postfix, I would recommend downloading https://launchpad.net/pypolicyd-spf/
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 07:46:22 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 11.10.2012 19:39, schrieb staticsafe:
> > That has fixed the issue. Thanks for all the help. I do find it a bit
> > weird that the Debian postfix maintainer decided to leave that turned on
> > in the default master.cf that ships wi
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 01:58:31 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
> Scott Kitterman:
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 07:46:22 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > Am 11.10.2012 19:39, schrieb staticsafe:
> > > > That has fixed the issue. Thanks for all the help. I do find i
On Friday, October 12, 2012 12:38:28 PM David Mehler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This might be off topic, but I was wondering I am using Postfix 2.9.x
> and am wanting to integrate antivirus capabilities. What are the
> differences between clamsmtp and clamav-milter? I'm wondering which
> one would be bet
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:07:20 PM Jumping Mouse wrote:
> Hello all my postfix smpt server started acting strangely after a year of
> flawless functioning.
>
> I am getting these messages in my mailqueue:
>
> host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] said: 451 4.5.0 From MTA([127.0.0.1]:10025) during
> f
On Friday, November 23, 2012 07:55:57 PM Glenn Park wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When I install Postfix using aptitude on a fresh Debian system, an
> interactive GUI comes up asking me how it wants me to configure
> postfix. I'd like to suppress this interface and make it default to
> "No configuration" (
On Friday, November 23, 2012 09:29:08 PM Glenn Park wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > On Friday, November 23, 2012 07:55:57 PM Glenn Park wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> When I install Postfix using aptitude on a fresh Debian s
On Friday, November 23, 2012 11:05:42 PM Glenn Park wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > On Friday, November 23, 2012 09:29:08 PM Glenn Park wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Scott Kitterman
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 07:05:51 PM Tony Nelson wrote:
> I just upgraded my Ubuntu server from 10.04 to 12.04 which upgraded Postfix
> to 2.9.1-4. The postfix server sits behind my firewall, in front of my
> corporate Exchange servers.
>
> After the upgrade I found that my exchange server
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 03:05:12 PM Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Tony Nelson skrev den 13-12-2012 02:04:
> > It appears that my upgrade didn't go so well. After running apt-get
> > update/upgrade I ended up upgrading some 250+ packages, including
> > Postfix. I now have 2.9.3-2~12.04.4 as you s
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 06:33:45 AM Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 5:59 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > i wanted to have an experienced suggestion from Pros. i have been
> > going through from different steps deploying clamav and spamassassin,
> > one is "mailscanner" and seccond one is
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 03:29:31 PM John Allen wrote:
> On 31/01/2013 6:59 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > i wanted to have an experienced suggestion from Pros. i have been
> > going through from different steps deploying clamav and spamassassin,
> > one is "mailscanner" and seccond one i
Andreas Schiermeier wrote:
>I'm confident our auditors will understand and accept the
>argumentation.
>The finding comes from an automated scan.
>
>It's good to know 2.11 will include the ability to disable compression.
>
>Maybe I'll inform Ubuntu package maintainers about my patch, in case
>th
On Friday, May 31, 2013 04:56:11 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix 2.1, maybe it
> is time to change the release numbering scheme.
>
> We could to the Linux thing where 2.mumble was followed by 3.mumble.
>
> or we could do it like Sun. After releasing
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:19:25 AM Gary Brinker wrote:
> Because of a hardware failure on an old installation of a postfix gateway I
> took the opportunity to install an up to date version on an Ubuntu server.
> I am not too far into the configuration but am having a basic problem with
> acces
On Friday, July 12, 2013 05:22:27 PM LuKreme wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2013, at 17:15 , J Gao wrote:
> > I could use 2.10 but I thought this will be "safe" for CentOS 6.
>
> It might just be me, but I don't consider any software that is no longer
> supported to be safe, especially not something as criti
b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>On Aug 16, 2013, at 01.56, Rob Tanner wrote:
>
>> What is it, besides adding the correct the DNS TXT records
>
>as there is a formal dns rr type for spf defined in rfc4408, you'll of
>course want to include that as well.
I wouldn't bother. It has only very limited deplo
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:16:03 Hans Spaans wrote:
> Scott Kitterman schreef op 2013-08-16 21:06:
> > b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> >> On Aug 16, 2013, at 01.56, Rob Tanner wrote:
> >>> What is it, besides adding the correct the DNS TXT records
> >>
&g
On Friday, August 23, 2013 15:38:38 David Hulsebus wrote:
> I apologize in advance for the long post. I started working for a small ISP
> with around 3000 mailboxes and inherited a Postfix server that I've been
> auditing. It's based on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, Postfix 2.51, and runs Courier for
> pop and
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 03:34:57 David Benfell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As near as I can tell debian's clamav is just broken. It keeps whining
> about clamd.ctl and nothing I can find on the web fixes it.
You didn't post your original configuration, so I don't know what your original
problem
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 17:34:35 li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> Am 21.09.2013 17:25, schrieb DTNX Postmaster:
> > +1 on using Debian ClamAV packages without any problems. We use the
> > milter package to integrate it with Postfix, using unix sockets.
> >
> > The problem people generally run int
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 09:02:05 David Benfell wrote:
> On 09/21/2013 07:36 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 21, 2013 03:34:57 David Benfell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As near as I can tell debian's clamav is just broken.
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 23:50:00 DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2013, at 21:29, David Benfell wrote:
> > At least within postfix, there is a very nice command to just fix the
> > permissions. (Did Wietse get tired of seeing that particular problem?)
> > I have no idea what they should
On Monday, November 11, 2013 20:41:05 Hans Spaans wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner schreef op 2013-11-09 04:22:
> > On 11/8/2013 4:05 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> >> there are only rare situations where a chrooted postfix
> >> makes sense and so they should not making a problematic
> >> default which gains
Kris Deugau wrote:
>jeffrey j donovan wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Can someone explain this error to me, I have never seen this one
>before. I tested my spf records and they seem fine.
>>
: host mail.ncem-pa.org[204.186.202.37] said:
>554
5.7.1 : Recipient address rejected: Failed
I thought there might be people here that would find this of interest:
http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/postfix-architecture-overview/
Scott K
On April 10, 2014 7:24:54 PM EDT, LuKreme wrote:
>
>On 10 Apr 2014, at 17:01 , Viktor Dukhovni
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:57:54AM +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>>
That said, I thought DKIM ignored everything after the signature
delimiter, so if the lists attach the footer
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 18:36:08 Erwan David wrote:
> Le 22/04/2014 18:29, Tim Smith a écrit :
> > Just trying to get my head round the error and understand what is
> > actually happening.
> >
> > So to summarize, the delivery.mailspampropection.com domain has 81 A
> > records which, when queri
On May 24, 2014 1:14:13 AM EDT, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:06:28PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:27:54PM -0500, Jeff Larsen wrote:
>>
>> > > Others may not be able to reproduce your problem. Ideally you'd
>help
>> > > the community by iden
On Monday, June 16, 2014 00:53:14 Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> On 06/15/2014 11:11 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> > what you describe is*the minimum* requirement of a sane MTA
> > you must not allow senders you would not accept incoming messages
> > and no - there are no exceptions for whatever user
>
On July 29, 2014 7:15:04 PM EDT, BlueStar88 wrote:
>
>Am 29.07.2014 um 19:40 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:24:41PM +0200, BlueStar88 wrote:
>>
>>> First we should extend DNS using another MX-like entry, to be able
>to
>>> define authoritative MTA client nodes for a specifi
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 00:04:31 Martin Vegter wrote:
> > On 08/25/2014 11:28 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >> Do I ned to change any settings in postfix, so that client IPs are
> >> resolved into hostnames?
> >
> > You need the correct DNS server in /etc/resolv.conf.
> >
> > You must not have "
On Thursday 24 July 2008 12:37, Sven Schwyn wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've just released the first version of Postwhite, a policy server for
> Postfix which implements whitelisting. These per-recipient whitelists
> are entirely managed by use of emails.
>
> http://www.bitcetera.com/products/postwhite
>
> Her
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:28:45 +1000 Daniel Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:32:13 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> You appear to have missed the next step where spammers scrape Arthur's
list
>> mail address from the mailing list archives and use it a
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:59:25 +0100 Evan Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 15:46 +0200, mouss wrote:
>> some sites drop traffic from residential blocks, which could explain why
>> you cannot connect.
>
>
>Hmmm That would make sense. But what about the other machines I have
>
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:30, LuKreme wrote:
> I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
> portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
>
> main.cf Added
> check_policy_service unix:private/policy
>
> (this is immediately after reject_unauth_destination
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 22:27, LuKreme wrote:
> On 20-Aug-2008, at 09:42, mouss wrote:
> > LuKreme wrote:
> >> I installed postfix-policyd-spf (postfix-policyd-spf-1.0.1_2 via
> >> portinstall) and added the following to master.cf and main.cf:
> >> main.cf Added
> >> check_policy_service unix:p
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 20:01, Michael wrote:
> Has anyone else here found incompatibilities between these two?
>
> My TLS implementation works fine sending from KDE Kmail, but I can't use
> Outlook Express' secure option.
Depending on the version of OE involved (I believe the current version
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:39:47 +1200 "Michael Hallager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Brian Evans - Postfix List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:50 AM
>Subject: Re: Postfix TLS and M$ Outlook Express
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 A
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:27:57 +0200 mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>once dovecot is configured, read
> http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html
>to setup postfix. Make sure your postfix was built with dovecot (sasl)
>support (so don't use an "ancient" postfix).
>
I don't recall if the Fe
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:16:00 -0400 "Raymond Jette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Good afternoon,
>
>I am using Postfix with postfix-policyd-spf-python for SPF. This is
>rejecting mail from the HELO verb. According to RFC 4008:
>
>
>
> The "HELO" identity derives from either the SMTP HELO or EHLO
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:59:00 -0400 Victor Duchovni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>All libspf2 users should read this post by Dan Kaminsky, and upgrade
>libspf2 to 1.2.8 as soon as possible:
>
>http://www.doxpara.com/?p=1263
>
FWIW, the Ubuntu libspf2 packages for all releases have been patched to
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:56:10 -0200 Márcio Luciano Donada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am now using the policyd as shown below:
>
>main.cf
># SPF
>spfpolicy_time_limit = 3600
>smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ...
>check_policy_service unix: private / spfpolicy
>...
>
>master.cf
>#SPF
>spfpoli
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:58:25 -0600 "Gerald V. Livingston II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Martin Strand wrote:
>> We're an email service provider hosting ~3000 domains. Customers can
>> delegate their domains to our nameservers and administer email
>> accounts with a web interface.
>>
>> I figured
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:44:48 -0500 (EST) Justin Piszcz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Was curious if there were any daemons out there that currently did this,
or if
>I should just modify the main spf checking script that openspf.org
provides?
>
I think tumgreyspf will do this. Alternatively, you c
On July 26, 2021 8:59:00 AM UTC, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>On 2021-07-24 09:29:04 +1000, raf wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 04:13:00PM +0200, Jean-François Bachelet
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello ^^)
>> >
>> > I found that error in mail.log, at each start postfix issue that error :
>> >
>> > 'Ju
On July 28, 2021 2:58:21 PM UTC, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>If the postfix-files file does not reflect the content delivered by
>the package, you would typically see errors running "postfix check".
>Either the package should deliver all the files expected upstream,
>or the "postfix-files" file sh
On August 13, 2021 12:05:44 PM UTC, post...@ptld.com wrote:
>Raf,
>Im confused by this, i thought as long as either dkim or spf passes then
>dmarc passes. But i still see dmarc fails.
>
> Envelope-From: dovecot-boun...@dovecot.org
> Header From: some...@netcourrier.com
>
> DKIM: bad signa
On November 2, 2021 8:18:54 PM UTC, PGNet Dev wrote:
>
>i've reported the bug here,
>
> python 3.10 incompat, exec FAILs @ "SystemError: PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN macro must
> be defined for '#' formats"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/dkimpy-milter/+bug/1949520
>
>fwiw, python 3.9 still works as expec
The original PCRE library that Postfix uses is no longer maintained:
https://pcre.org/
It's been replaced by PCRE2, which has a notably different API, so Postfix PCRE
support would need porting. I've looked and it's beyond my limited skills.
Is there any chance of getting this updated for Pos
On November 21, 2021 10:50:24 PM UTC, Wietse Venema
wrote:
>Wietse Venema:
>> Scott Kitterman:
>> > The original PCRE library that Postfix uses is no longer maintained:
>> >
>> > https://pcre.org/
>> >
>> > It's been repla
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 6:16:43 PM EST Wietse Venema wrote:
> J?rgen Weber:
> > From webe...@host.my.tld Sun Nov 21 19:11:19 2021
> > Return-Path:
> > X-Original-To: maild@my.virtual
> > Delivered-To: ma...@host.my.tld
> > Received: by host.my.tld (Postfix, from userid 1001)
> > id D3DFD783
On December 6, 2021 8:18:11 PM UTC, Herndon Elliott
wrote:
>I am just getting started with trying to install postifx and get it running
>on a single Ubuntu 18.04 server. The documentation talks at length about
>changes to be made in "/etc/postfix/main.cf" file, but there is no such
>file in m
On December 10, 2021 4:32:50 AM UTC, raf wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 07:55:54PM +0800, Piper H wrote:
>
>> I sent an email from my t-online.de account to gmail.
>> Gmail shows SPF pass by best guessing:
>>
>> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
>> x...@t-online
On Monday, November 15, 2021 9:03:32 AM EST wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre:
> > Under Debian, after the postfix upgrade from 3.5.6 to 3.5.13,
> > postconf now outputs duplicate bounce_notice_recipient lines:
> >
> > zira:~> postconf | grep '^bounce_notice_recipient'
> > bounce_notice_recipient = postma
On December 22, 2021 2:34:22 AM UTC, Wietse Venema wrote:
>Scott Kitterman:
>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 9:03:32 AM EST wrote:
>> > Vincent Lefevre:
>> > > Under Debian, after the postfix upgrade from 3.5.6 to 3.5.13,
>> > > postconf now outpu
1 - 100 of 319 matches
Mail list logo
