MS is publishing source ips/ranges.
sasl_exeptions_networks seems an option but i still dont like the lack of
authentication.
Am Sonntag, 16. Juni 2019 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> Stefan Bauer:
>> its like the first:
>>
>> end-user client -> microsoft server -> postfix
Bill,
yes thats the question. i would consider the two factors as reliable. MS is
signing mails. i just like clear user authentication instead of rely on
volatile ips/blocks, microsoft publishes/changes.
what i need to check is also, whether MS allows spoofing of sender address.
i need to make su
m 22:37 Uhr schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Stefan Bauer wrote:
>
> > Some of our users use o365 but would like to use our service for outgoing
> > mails. We are offering smtp sending services. Integrating
.fu...@external.thalesgroup.com>:
> Le 16/06/2019 à 22:37, Viktor Dukhovni a écrit :
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> >
> >> Some of our users use o365 but would like to use our service for
> outgoing
> >> mails. We are offeri
As microsoft ofers DKIM-singing for outgoing mails at no extra cost, i will
validate this information as 3rd authentication token.
Looks much clearer and several addons for postfix exist to do so.
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 21:31 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
>
> The latter is
we're pulling all kind of logs and graph them in fancy ways with zabbix.
zabbix has a small client with tiny footprint and can do encrypted transfer
of logs/data to server.
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 22:20 Uhr schrieb PGNet Dev :
> I'm aware of the list of stats tools
>
>http://www.postfix.org/
Hi,
we're publishing lookup tables through our control git repo but hashing all
tables before commiting them to git is cumbersome. What do you recommend?
several postfix servers are getting same lookup table from central
repository.
we're using it this ways:
smtpd_sender_restrictions = check_se
Thank you for your answer, but this brings in another piece of software.
Want to keep it simple.
Am Di., 25. Juni 2019 um 13:34 Uhr schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas <
uh...@fantomas.sk>:
> On 24.06.19 21:42, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> >we're publishing lookup tables through our
Hi,
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/headerstring
/^Subject: .*\[cleartext\].*/ FILTER cleartext:
And now, there is the following mail-Subject, that did not trigger the
above FILTER and i dont see why:
Subject:
=?Windows-1252?Q?[Cleartext]_Webinar_=84Noch_keine_55_und_ab_in_die_GKV=93?=
Any
man 5 header_checks
By default, regexp <http://www.postfix.org/regexp_table.5.html>: and
pcre <http://www.postfix.org/pcre_table.5.html>: patterns are
case *insensitive*.
Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 13:40 Uhr schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas <
uh...@fantomas.sk>:
> On 1
only this single filter is present - no other filters.
Unfortunately thats not enough to trigger the filter.
Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 14:00 Uhr schrieb pasvon :
> What does the complete file /etc/postfix/headerstring look like?
> Does another line match a filter action and override the desired r
wrong
with encoding.
Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Wietse Venema <
wie...@porcupine.org>:
> Stefan Bauer:
> > Hi,
> >
> > header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/headerstring
> > /^Subject: .*\[cleartext\].*/ FILTER cleartext:
> >
> > And n
kind of Outlooks, entering
postfix via office 365.
Am Samstag, 20. Juli 2019 schrieb Wietse Venema :
> Stefan Bauer:
>> I dont get it. Testing the above correctly shows
>>
>> Subject:
>>
=?Windows-1252?Q?[Cleartext]_Webinar_=84Noch_keine_55_und_ab_in_die_GKV=93?=
>>
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
