Roman Gelfand put forth on 1/3/2010 3:44 PM:
> I do train DSPAM and it works great. However, if I could block it
> before it gets to DSPAM, why not. I wouldn't feel bad if exchange
> told me this is perfectly good email. I am, looking, to do away with
> exchange server altogether.
Is managing
Eric Williams put forth on 1/5/2010 8:02 AM:
> I would like to apply the same access list so that users sending mail through
> this server can only reach those same domains.
>
> I've tried lots of recipient checking configs but nothing works so far. I'd
> rather not do this with the firewall,
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:49:23 -0800, Dennis Carr
wrote:
> 1) A better way to do this, using already existing mechanisms in
> Postfix, or...
Myabe have a look at this and tweak your server as necessary:
http://www.hardwarefreak.com/postfix-adsl-relay-config.txt
--
Stan
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:24:25 +0200, Patrick Chemla
> When I telnet a70.localpc2105.com 25 I get an immediate response.
I assume you are telnet'ing from the Postfix server with the queue delay
problem. At this point, after you receive the 220, type:
ehlo your.postfix-server.tld
and time the d
Jack Knowlton put forth on 1/9/2010 9:57 AM:
> Hi all.
> Our internal postfix server relays all outbound mail thru an external host.
> How can I set it to use a different relay server when the email comes from
> a specified domain? Eg. j...@domain1.com -> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (default),
> m...@domain2.c
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 11:17 AM:
> Hi all,
>
> I got these statistics:
>
> Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
> interval Jan 9 19:09:03
> Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: domain lookup
> hits=110 miss=89 success=55%
> Jan 9 1
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 11:07 AM:
> Hi,
>
> I will try all your advises, but something still very strange for me:
>
> We see that postfix logs show that ehlo process is very slow through
> postfix but very fast by hand. Even I have recorded through
> tcpdump/WireShark and I can see t
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 12:37 PM:
> I wen t there but did not find explanations about miss address lookup or
> miss domain lookup.
> While I have 122,000 messages in active queue I still don't understand
> why statistics show max simultaneous domains=1. It should be dozens , or
> hund
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 1:08 PM:
> You mean 100% success?
Yes.
> Before I set up the postfix relay to load balance between 30 qmail
> servers, each of them was able to accept in his own queue hundreds
> thousands email. Email were sent by campaigns of thousands balanced on 3
> qmail
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/10/2010 3:00 PM:
> Wietse,
>>> Please try the following, as asked half a week ago:
>>>
>>> postconf -e smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
>>> postfix reload
>>>
>>> and report if this makes a difference.
>>> Wietse
>>>
> I have tested this since yes
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/11/2010 1:02 AM:
> Le 10/01/2010 23:58, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>> On a technical level I'm happy you got it working. Just please tell
>> us you're
>> not sending mass spam with this setup.
>>
>> --
>> Stan
>>
Christoph Anton Mitterer put forth on 1/11/2010 5:31 PM:
> Using the "resolvconf" package, should solve your problems, the Debian
> postfix package ships rules for resolvconf in order to automatically
> update the chroot resolv.conf.
resolvconf has a long list of conflicts including ifupdown and
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/11/2010 5:03 PM:
> Does anyone have an auto-whitelisting policy daemon? I want to have a
> test early in sender checks that would bypass most of my other spam
> prevention if a sender is in the whitelist - and have that whitelist
> automatically updated by internal
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
> I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
> to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downside.
What's the downside Frank?
--
Stan
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:12 PM:
> On January 12, 2010 12:09:28 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
>> Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
>>
>>> I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
>>> to accepti
Noel Jones put forth on 1/12/2010 12:50 PM:
> On 1/12/2010 12:39 PM, Aaron Clausen wrote:
>> Are challenge response systems still heavily frowned on?
>>
>
> Yes.
Yes.
--
Stan
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 2:29 PM:
> Not to be rude, but I'm not sure why you asked me the question in the
> first place. It was in fact a great question. Your response however
> was merely to dismiss my problem. So it seems like your question was
> just rhetoric designed to sink this
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 9:46 PM:
> I think it all ended well though? Except my problem still exists. :\
We know things break when that hosts sends mail to you. What happens when you
send mail to that host? Do you see the same disconnect problem or similar?
What were the results of
Alexandru Florescu put forth on 1/13/2010 7:33 AM:
>
> permit_mynetworks,
>
> Is some option missing? What can I do to prevent this? I found it because I
> received spam in this way.
>
> Using postfix 2.3.3 on Centos 5.4.
I'm guessing your telnet client machine
Dhiraj Chatpar put forth on 1/13/2010 3:21 PM:
> Dear All,
>
> What string or what configuration to use in postfix in order to not
> receive any bounces at all. I mean incase there is a bounce it should
> not be returned back to the sender who initiated the mail.
>
> I am sure there is a way to a
Dhiraj Chatpar put forth on 1/13/2010 3:31 PM:
> Yes, But which parameter to use in order to stop bounces totally and how?
Please don't top post.
You may try commenting out the bounce daemon in master.cf and restarting
Postfix.
bounceunix - - - - 0 bounce
#bou
Joe put forth on 1/13/2010 9:35 PM:
> Jim Seymour wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>> I'm working on a new release even now. More information to
>> follow in a day or two.
>
> That is great news - looking forward to your next release. It's a useful
> tool indeed.
Seconded. I use it daily, although I'm
Wendigo Thompson put forth on 1/14/2010 6:39 PM:
> Okay, I have some updates. Reducing the concurrency down (and
> ultimately to 1) increased performance: it seems the delays I was
> seeing were related to concurrency inside SQL. However, I am still
> seeing half second delays in local delivery w
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/17/2010 2:47 PM:
> On January 17, 2010 12:37:46 PM -0800 "Daniel V. Reinhardt"
> wrote:
>> A proper ISP and Host would have the proper PTR Records set up thus
>> validating the said sender as being part of a reputable ISP or Host.
>> Most of the spammers I have come acr
Victor Duchovni put forth on 1/17/2010 5:43 PM:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:38:12PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> According to discussions on the Postfix list there is a legitimate
>> need for such functionality. Until now this requires one Postfix
>> instance per source IP address.
>
> I am
LuKreme put forth on 1/17/2010 5:55 PM:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 13:37, "Daniel V. Reinhardt"
> wrote:
>> So rejecting email email by PTR Records is a spam prevention thing.
>
> Can you back this up at all? It's certainly not true in my experience
> and hasn't been true in a long time.
Then I'd sur
LuKreme put forth on 1/18/2010 12:46 AM:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 17:27, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Then I'd surmise your experience is very limited.
>
> I have only been running a mailserver for 17 years or so.
Do you use either of these restrictions?
reject_unk
Frank Bonnet put forth on 1/18/2010 4:19 AM:
> Hello
>
> I wonder how to reject a particuliar address at MX machine
>
> actually I use :
> smtpd_sender_restrictions =
> \check_sender_access hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/sender_access
Do you want to reject an email address, or an IP address? If em
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
> A point - and a good one for initialization of the whitelist. However,
> this does not address the need to add new addresses to the list
> automatically. Example - our company changes insurance brokers, and
> needs to receive forms from the new
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 1:30 PM:
>> If you _need_ a home brew solution _now_, start small and inelegant,
>> getting
>> most of the functionality you want/need. This can be done with simple
>> scripts
>> and cron. After it's working relatively well, _then_ spend time
>> creating t
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
> I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net). if you
> want my modifications, contact me off-list.
I'm surprised you actually mentioned a solution whose core feature is
challenge/response. C/R is one of those "cur
Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:50 PM:
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Mark Nernberg (gmail account) put forth on 1/18/2010 4:17 PM:
>>
>>> I have achieved this with a slightly hacked TMDA (www.tmda.net).
Well, there's one positive side to this thread Noel. Your reply to "undisclosed
recipients" instead of the list address broke my postfix-users sort filter. I
just spent 20 minutes trying to figure it out. I tried "received" and
"return-path" and all kinds of header checks in the T-Bird message
/dev/rob0 put forth on 1/19/2010 10:41 AM:
>> I have to manually install postfix-doc to find a
>> /usr/share/doc/postfix/RELEASE_NOTES.gz file.
>
> This is worth complaining about, IMO. If a user should make the
> conscious decision to not install the documentation with a given
> package, that's
Steve put forth on 1/19/2010 7:10 PM:
> I have another opinion on that. The Anti-Spam solution I use has normally
> 0.01 seconds (or less but could be more as well) per message when classifying
> a mail for Ham/Spam. Every processing of a message allows me to increase the
> accuracy of the solu
mouss put forth on 1/20/2010 2:26 PM:
>> That's just plain silly.
>
> Keep calm Stan!
I was calm. I had no exclamation point there. ;)
> Consider this to be a good lesson: your filtering approach is
> suboptimal. For most mailing lists, you can use one of:
It _was_ less than optimal.
> List-
Charles Marcus put forth on 1/21/2010 6:05 AM:
> On 2010-01-19, Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com) wrote:
>> So now I get to file a bug report on T-Bird as it's clearly not processing
>> the
>> headers correctly or obeying "custom" headers I plug in. Hel
I've wondered for a couple of months why my rbl check is being skipped. I've
not seen a spamhaus entry in my logs since Sept 25 '09. Interestingly, postgrey
is being called now and then, and it is after the rbl check in main.cf. Any
idea why my rbl check is being skipped? What have I screwed up
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/22/2010 1:28 AM:
> I've wondered for a couple of months why my rbl check is being skipped. I've
> not seen a spamhaus entry in my logs since Sept 25 '09. Interestingly,
> postgrey
> is being called now and then, and it is after the rbl ch
Mikael Bak put forth on 1/22/2010 7:50 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>> 1. Spamhaus has banned Google Public DNS resolver queries.
>
> Stan,
> Do you have a good enough reason to not run your own name resolver on
> your front MX machine?
>
> IMO relying on thir
Kenneth Marshall put forth on 1/22/2010 8:39 AM:
> pdns-recursor 3.1.7.2 is easy to configure/use and has a tuneable
> resource footprint.
Got her installed, configured, up and running. Let's see if this improves this
spamhaus situation, and a handful a day of other dns related errors I've been
Noel Jones put forth on 1/22/2010 10:00 AM:
> Nothing is logged because the DNS server gives an authoritive "does not
> exist" answer. That's not an error, it is the expected response when a
> client is not listed in an RBL.
Hi Noel,
I was not venting at Postfix, or Wietse, or any of the devs f
Mark Goodge put forth on 1/22/2010 11:07 AM:
> It's not the fault of
> Spamhaus, Google or Postfix if people don't RTFM.
I'll give you that. I'd been using zen for years, and sbl-xbl for years before
that. When I changed my resolvers to Google from my current provider's (for
performance reasons,
Stefan Foerster put forth on 1/23/2010 11:08 AM:
> In case of severe server "overload", with postscreen(8) complaining
> about lookup and update times around 400ms almost every mail, is it
> (reasonably) safe as a last desperate measure to put $data_directory,
> or at least the file referenced by $
Javier Fox put forth on 1/27/2010 7:57 PM:
> Greetings,
>
> I've inherited a rather kludgy email system consisting of an overpriced,
> underpowered spam filtering appliance which I would very much like to
> replace with a simple *nix box running Postfix and some manner of spam
> filtering software
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/27/2010 9:47 PM:
> http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html#firewall
> http://www.postfix.org/CONTENT_INSPECTION_README.html
> http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_recipient_restric
Jeff Weinberger put forth on 1/28/2010 4:18 PM:
> You've made it clear I'm posting the wrong thing - but I don't know
> what the "right" thing is
Sorry to but in Wietse.
Jeff, paste all of postconf -n output and obfuscate any sensitive information in
it such as hostnames or IP addresses that
Based on purely visual non-scientific observation (top), it seems my smtpd
processes on my MX hang around much longer in (Debian) 2.5.5 than they did in
(Debian) 2.3.8. In 2.3.8 Master seemed to build them and tear them down very
quickly after the transaction was complete. An smtpd process' lifes
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/29/2010 12:27 AM:
> Based on purely visual non-scientific observation (top), it seems my smtpd
> processes on my MX hang around much longer in (Debian) 2.5.5 than they did in
> (Debian) 2.3.8. In 2.3.8 Master seemed to build them and tear them down very
Hay Wietse,
Someone was wondering on spam-l why Postfix defaults smtpd VRFY to ON instead of
OFF. Their theory being that the default of ON makes it easier for spammers to
harvest addresses.
Most people shut if off (including me). Then spammers go to RCPT TO checking,
so IMO it makes little dif
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/29/2010 6:15 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> Based on purely visual non-scientific observation (top), it seems my smtpd
>> processes on my MX hang around much longer in (Debian) 2.5.5 than they did in
>> (Debian) 2.3.8. In 2.3.8 Master seemed to build th
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/30/2010 9:03 AM:
> Allow me to present a tutorial on Postfix and operating system basics.
Thank you Wietse. I'm always eager to learn. :)
> Postfix reuses processes for the same reasons that Apache does;
> however, Apache always runs a fixed minimum amount of daemon
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/30/2010 7:14 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> AFAIK I don't use Berkeley DB tables, only hash (small,few) and cidr
>> (very large, a handful).
>
> hash (and btree) == Berkeley DB.
Ahh, good to know. I'd thought only btree used Berkeley DB and
. Before that, afaik, it
was only being called for local alias verification, and it exited immediately in
that case as well.
--
Stan
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/30/2010 11:13 PM:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 1/30/2010 7:14 PM:
>> Stan Hoeppner:
>>> AFAIK I don't use Berkel
dd1313 put forth on 1/31/2010 2:44 AM:
>
> could you point me to that part of the docs that refer to that.Actually I
> know not what to do next.
> I have logged in as root on ubuntu, what is next please
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/add-a-user-on-ubuntu-server/
--
Stan
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 1/31/2010 12:04 AM:
> Sorry for top posting. Forgot to add something earlier: Proxymap seems to be
> exiting on my system immediately after servicing requests. It does not seem
> to
> be obeying $max_use or $max_idle which are both set to 100. It d
Jacqui Caren-home put forth on 1/31/2010 12:47 PM:
> I recommend joining the spam-l list and joining the discussion there.
I recommend against this. The topic is dead there now. One poster there
questioned why Wietse enabled it by default. I merely asked here so I could
post an official answer
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/31/2010 10:38 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> This is making good progress. Seeing the smtpd's memory footprint
>> drop so dramatically is fantastic. However, I'm still curious as
>> to why proxymap doesn't appear to be honorin
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/31/2010 7:34 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>>> Better: apply the long-term solution, in the form of the patch below.
>>> This undoes the max_idle override (a workaround that I introduced
>>> with Postfix 2.3). I already introduced the better solut
Noel Jones put forth on 1/29/2010 8:44 AM:
> On 1/29/2010 1:37 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Local shows very speedy delivery. Is this "long" smtpd process
>>> lifespan normal
>>> for 2.5.5 or did I do something screwy/wrong in my config?
>>>
>
Carlos Williams put forth on 2/1/2010 10:04 AM:
> I recommend and prefer Roundcube.
>
> http://roundcube.net/
+1
If you're going to offer webmail, you may as well offer IMAP folders instead of
POP. JMHO.
I'm an ex Squirrelmail user and switched to Roundcube, mainly for the nicer user
interfac
Kay put forth on 2/1/2010 11:49 AM:
> In my job (hosting company) I see boxes exploited via roundcube all the
> time. Squirrelmail? Not one so far. Part of the reason is that
> squirrelmail comes with RHEL, so it's kept up to date automatically,
> while customers install their own roundcube and
Charles Marcus put forth on 2/1/2010 4:17 PM:
> On 2010-02-01 4:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> My Roundcube package is currently up to date, and it is a standard
>> Debian package:
>>
>> [02:21:52][r...@greer]/$ aptitude show roundcube
>> Package: roundcub
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 2/1/2010 4:31 PM:
> That's probably some sort of twisted Debian humor .)
I wish it was humor... Debian Stable always lags pretty seriously behind the
cutting edge release versions of a lot of packages. Then again, from what I
understand, so do RHEL, CentOS, SLES, a
Wade Smart put forth on 2/1/2010 7:43 PM:
> Right now I just sent from my mail client (thunderbird) but I would
> like to be able to send back through postfix to keep a record of all
> sent mails.
That's what your Sent Items folder is for.
You need to keep in mind that by default Pos
Michele Carandente put forth on 2/2/2010 3:57 AM:
> message_size_limit = 3072
Unrelated to your question, but...
You say this machine is behind a dial up line? Ouch! You may want to seriously
consider changing this to something more sane like 262144. With a 56K modem
averaging a real 45 K
Radio Tron put forth on 2/3/2010 8:22 AM:
> 3. How do I handle bounced mail and postmaster.. create a white-list file for
> postmaster and put a rule saying PASS all.. will that create a loophole where
> scumbags can spoof the FROM: field???
The scumbags always spoof the FROM: field. You can w
DUBOURG Kevin put forth on 2/8/2010 4:23 AM:
> On debian repository 2.5.5-1.1 ... Snif ...
You're looking in the Lenny/Stable repo. Debian never adds new software revs
into Stable TTBOMK. Lenny was released 14 Feb 09, one year ago. If you want
Postfix 2.6.5 as a Deb package, you'll have to go
Jerry put forth on 2/8/2010 5:13 AM:
> Wow, I was not aware the debian had actually progressed that far.
Debian jumped from Postfix 2.3.8 on Etch to 2.5.5 when Lenny was flipped to
Stable. Looong release cycles tend to produce these miracle "rev leaps" on
occasion. On the flip side, more often,
K bharathan put forth on 2/2/2010 10:49 AM:
> thanks for all
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Carlos Williams wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Charles Marcus
>> wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-01 7:17 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>>> All of that sai
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/9/2010 8:54 AM:
> Dhiraj Chatpar:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please note that i am getting another error on ubuntu 9.10 machine with
>> postfix 2.6.5 as below
>>
>> r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -i postfix-1 -e enable
>> r...@smtp:/etc/postfix# postmulti -i postfix-1 -p sta
Jeff Lacki put forth on 2/9/2010 10:53 AM:
> I have a situation with hosting.com, trying to setup
> a friends postfix config. Since I knew nothing about
> them I asked him to find out what their smtp server
> was. They said that we cannot use it and gave us a link
> to setup postfix, however they
Thijssen put forth on 2/9/2010 4:19 AM:
> - If they like flashy GUI bullshit like HTML-mail and WYSIWYG
> formatted emails and spam and commerce, then don't use Squirrelmail.
> - If they focuss on actual text content and plaintext emails (the way
> it should be), then squirrelmail is your Number O
Frank Bonnet put forth on 2/12/2010 10:05 AM:
> Hello all ( Postfix and Dovecot )
>
> Trying to use deliver as mailbox_command with Postfix I get this
> error each time an email is arriving
>
> deliver(): Error: file_dotlock_create(/var/mail/)
> failed: Permission denied (euid=300
LuKreme put forth on 2/12/2010 10:08 AM:
> On 12-Feb-2010, at 08:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>> Tell me about this "top-secure" aspect of Squirrelmail again. ;)
>
> The fact that some spammers are able to get into email accounts and send spam
> via squir
Aaron Wolfe put forth on 2/12/2010 11:39 AM:
> It might be better to think in terms of messages per hour than number of
> users.
Most importantly, who are these users? Are they customers? Members of some
society or club? Will these be their primary email accounts or secondary,
tertiary, etc?
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 2/12/2010 3:50 PM:
> 2.8 Dual Core
> 2GB RAM
What about disk? Disk is typically the key subsystem for mail performance.
Fast CPUs don't do much for mail without a fast disk subsystem. At minimum get
hardware mirroring for two disks (RAID 1) and best to make them 1
Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 2/12/2010 5:05 PM:
> Hi Stan,
Hi. Try to keep the discussions on list so everyone can assist.
> You've hit a very good question. They don't currently have an office
> email system. Staff are using their personal Hotmail accounts when they
> need to send the odd ema
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/14/2010 12:52 PM:
> regexp:/etc/postfix/recipients.pcre
^^
Wietse is this a typo or am I about to learn something new about regexp/pcre
interchangeability/compatibility in Postfix? I'm assuming in the example above
that the
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
Never post links to information that requires a credit card in order to view it.
I'm sure this breaks one if not many netiquette rules. ;
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:33 AM:
> On 02/15/2010 01:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
&
Frank Bonnet put forth on 2/15/2010 3:10 AM:
> On 02/12/10 18:25, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Frank Bonnet put forth on 2/12/2010 10:05 AM:
>>> Hello all ( Postfix and Dovecot )
>>>
>>> Trying to use deliver as mailbox_command with Postfix I get this
>
jchase put forth on 2/18/2010 11:49 AM:
> header_size_limit = 256
header_size_limit (default: 102400)
The maximal amount of memory in bytes for storing a message header. If a
header is larger, the excess is discarded. The limit is enforced by the
cleanup(8) server.
Your current header_size
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 2/18/2010 12:21 PM:
> jchase put forth on 2/18/2010 11:49 AM:
>
>> header_size_limit = 256
>
> header_size_limit (default: 102400)
>
> The maximal amount of memory in bytes for storing a message header. If a
> header is larger, the exc
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 2/19/2010 12:35 PM:
> * mouss :
>
>>> Your DNS lookups are broken:
> ...
>> or spamhaus blocks his DNS server.
>
> Yes, but that's within my interpretation of "Your DNS lookups are
> broken" :)))
Recall my recent thread about this. I had switched my resolvers to Go
Patrick Chemla put forth on 2/19/2010 1:38 AM:
> Hi,
>
> I have a Postfix 2.6 relaying tons of emails to millions email addresses
> and domains.
>
> I have listed tens of thousands of email addresses and domains to which
> I don't want to relay any more.
The plot thickens...
First you said you
dar...@chaosreigns.com put forth on 2/19/2010 11:26 PM:
> I want to collect all spam delivered to my server to an invalid user /
> domain. luser_relay seems to be doing part of the job, but how do I get it
> around or through spamassassin which is set up as a pre-queue content
> filter? It looks
brian moore put forth on 2/22/2010 12:57 PM:
> I like Spamhaus, and it is very effective, though they do charge a
> nontrivial fee for commercial usage that would never get approved around here.
You may be pleasantly surprised to find out you do qualify for free use.
http://www.spamhaus.org/orga
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/23/2010 10:39 AM:
> Not all the world
> is Linux. In fact there are 10 times as many Macs.
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/16/2010 10:01 AM:
> This is a technical mailing list. When you claim that something is
> bad, you need to support that claim with actual evidence. O
Wietse Venema put forth on 2/23/2010 11:41 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 2/23/2010 10:39 AM:
>>
>>> Not all the world
>>> is Linux. In fact there are 10 times as many Macs.
>>
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 2/16/2010 10:01 AM:
&
Sahil Tandon put forth on 2/23/2010 12:53 PM:
> Stan can you take this pedantic nitpicking off-list if you must
> persist? Thanks.
No need to go off-list. This poor dead horse has been beaten enough, I
think. Sorry to have been in pedant mode.
/~$ /usr/bin/wishful_commands/pedant off
--
Sta
Daniel Morgan put forth on 2/26/2010 12:04 AM:
>> myhostname = apac3.apac.org.ni
>
> In DNS: apac3.apac.org.ni = 165.98.119.11
> BUT
> 165.98.119.11 != apac3.apac.org.ni
> 165.98.119.11 == pppleon11.ibw.com.ni.
Post the rejected transaction(s) from your logs please. It's likely they
are rejectin
David Schraeder put forth on 2/26/2010 2:13 PM:
> How are you guys getting those stats on the blocks?
Alternatively, try pflogsumm:
http://jimsun.linxnet.com/postfix_contrib.html
If you use Debian you can install pflogsumm via aptitude.
--
Stan
Carlos Williams put forth on 2/28/2010 1:55 PM:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> Or you can have postfix add it to main.cf for you by typing the command:
>>
>> # postconf -e 'address_verify_sender=$double_bounce_sender'
>
> I added the above parameter
> (address_verify_send
Carlos Williams put forth on 2/28/2010 10:02 PM:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Carlos, I think it's time you join spam-l and learn all the tricks to
>> fighting spam. http://spam-l.com/mailman/listinfo/spam-l
>
> Thanks. I will research thi
Daniel L. Miller put forth on 3/2/2010 1:18 AM:
> OK - I'm an idiot. I'll just admit that up front and get it out of the
> way.
>
> Now that that's settled, what is the difference between "SSL" and "TLS"
> in a MUA - particularly Thunderbird - in a Postfix context?
>
> I would have sworn I used
Bill Landry put forth on 3/2/2010 2:01 AM:
> On 3/1/2010 11:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Daniel L. Miller put forth on 3/2/2010 1:18 AM:
>>> OK - I'm an idiot. I'll just admit that up front and get it out of the
>>> way.
>>>
>>> Now that t
Gregory BELLIER put forth on 3/2/2010 6:03 AM:
> Hi !
>
> I downloaded postfix-2.7.0 and I need to manually build it.
> The goal is to place everything in a different folder than usual :
> /opt/postfix
http://www.postfix.org/INSTALL.html
4.4 - Overriding built-in parameter default settings
Al
donovan jeffrey j put forth on 3/1/2010 8:06 AM:
> Greetings
>
> I had several of these on my primary MX this weekend and one just popped
> up. Can someone explain where this Insufficient system storage is ?
What filesystem are you using? Are you running out of inodes?
/$ df -i
--
Stan
Ansgar Wiechers put forth on 3/3/2010 6:37 AM:
> On 2010-03-03 Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
>> I'm not sure if there is a solution to this, but maybe one of you
>> folks will know a "workaround".
>>
>> After thunderbird has sent the email, it then has to save the email to
>> the sent items folders. Thi
1 - 100 of 1297 matches
Mail list logo
