lter only incoming mail for specific domains (e.g. from
> $my_destination) and let the other to be relayed without any checks?
>
You could run DSPAM in OptIn mode and enable DSPAM to only filter for addresses
you have opted-in.
> Greetings,
>
// Steve
> --
> Marcin Rzepec
;t designed to do that,
>
> dspam gets it via LMTP MAIL FROM, and it will pass it back to postfix
> with SMT MAIL FROM. I have used this in the past and I'm sure others are
> using it now (ping steve?).
>
I hear you :) Have not followed the discussion. So I don't know e
tools, SPF, DKIM, etc) and for
tagging I would suggest you look at the many available anti-spam tools (aka
DSPAM, SpamAssassin, ASSP, etc)
// Steve
--
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen:
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
tfix/smtpd[14242]: warning: unknown smtpd
restriction: "my_filter"
Why is that? What am I missing?
// Steve
--
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen:
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:00:21 -0500
> Von: Brian Evans - Postfix List
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Calling smtpd restriction/filter from within master.cf
> Steve wrote:
> > Hello list
> >
> > I just don
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:14:08 +0100
> Von: mouss
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Calling smtpd restriction/filter from within master.cf
> Steve a écrit :
> > Hello list
> >
> > I just don't get it.
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:44:53 +0100
> Von: mouss
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Calling smtpd restriction/filter from within master.cf
> Steve a écrit :
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: T
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:38:26 +0100
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Calling smtpd restriction/filter from within master.cf
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Thu, 29 Jan
y to RTM but I'm tending to find it
is verbose, but all over the place.
mail_version = 2.5.5
Steve
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 09:28 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
> > Hello 'list';
> > This is my first time out in 'list' land so please don't flame me if I
> > get the format wrong. Coaching and constructive criticism is fine ;-)
> > {u
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 09:39 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
>
> > I disagree. It looks like Postfix is broken. Whilst I can see the desire
> > to look up private IP ranges to see if they have a PTR record, it would
> > not be unreasonable to expect it not to d
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:43 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
>
> > > Where is this behaviour documented?
>
> > Good question. If it is not surely it would make a sensible feature
> > request? Clearly as an expert on Postfix perhaps you can tell *ME*
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> smtpd_peername_lookup = no
Any idea what it defaults to Ralf?
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 11:15 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Steve :
> > On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > smtpd_peername_lookup = no
> >
> > Any idea what it defaults to Ralf?
>
> postconf -d smtpd_peername_lookup
>
No
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 06:41 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix? There is a lot of
> > 'half' documentation Ralf and plenty of 'assumed that you know&
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 06:41 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 5/19/2009, Steve (steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk) wrote:
> > Just where is anything fully documented with Postfix? There is a lot of
> > 'half' documentation Ralf and plenty of 'assumed that you know&
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:52 +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:51:57AM +0100, Steve wrote:
> >
> > I'll have to live with the waste of bandwidth looking up local clients
> > has on the network. It's a small cost value, but an unnecessary one a
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 12:32 +0200, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Steve wrote:
> > I'll have to live with the waste of bandwidth looking up local clients
> > has on the network. It's a small cost value, but an
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 12:17 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Dr.Pesko:
> > Nope, I need option which can enable auto DSN report about sent messages
> > and will send it to another mailbox. Is it possible in postfix? Thanks.
>
> This is not an MTA feature.
>
> It is sometimes found in MUAs, as "save
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 14:44 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Steve:
> > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 12:17 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > Dr.Pesko:
> > > > Nope, I need option which can enable auto DSN report about sent
> > > > messages
> > > >
I was taking apart a well know anti spam appliance on the Bench today
and it has some interesting (but clearly ripped off) software inside.
I managed to find;
INBOUND MTA
{own munged MTA with a queue structure just like Postfix called BSMTP}
This pushes inbound mail VIA Clam/AmavisNew/Spamassasin
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 09:06 +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
> 2009/5/22 Steve :
> > This 'BSMTP' munged MTA looks to offer very little more than Postfix
> > save for some Rate Control/Throttling/Better logging ? From my early
> > explorations with Postfix, it can mostl
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 18:06 +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
> 2009/5/22 Ralf Hildebrandt :
> >> 2. Rate/Anti DNS control
> >> a. If IP X is seen more than 50 times in 30 minutes block it.
> >
> > Postfix can do that using anvil
>
> I'd just like to add to that; the answer here on the list is al
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:37 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> Connection rate (rather than concurrency) limits are rather risky,
> a site with legitimate mail to send, and a lot of senders, may not be
> able to deliver any mail to you in the face of a load-spike.
I can see your point, but any load s
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 15:07 -0700, brian moore wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 14:37:48 -0400
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > Connection rate (rather than concurrency) limits are rather risky,
> > a site with legitimate mail to send, and a lot of senders, may not be
> > able to deliver any mail to yo
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:20 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> A machine name is required for several email-related Internet standards.
No problem with this;
> Besides, having all DNS names resolve to the same box is not normal usage.
>
This is nothing more than an opinion as far as I can tell. It may
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:42 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Steve:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:20 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > A machine name is required for several email-related Internet standards.
> > No problem with this;
> > > Besides, having a
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 15:20 -0400, Scott Lewis wrote:
> On May 28, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you can do the same to support your 1980's view of systems
> > administration? You need to get some help with that temper of yours.
> > It's the han
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 23:55 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu May 28 2009 23:21:06 Steve wrote:
> > way of the 1980's 'is the law' that leads to entirely useless, rude
> > and incorrect answers.
>
> Replied offlist. I think this thread should stop here. Thank
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 22:53 -0700, Joe Sloan wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Personally, I would not have a M$ box for anything other than charity.
> > That is to allow those nice far eastern people access to my resources to
> > send UCE.
> > Mind you, most of
Is this right?
"You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
header or body checks. Header and body checks take place whether you
explicitly "OK" a client or sender, in access lists, or not."
I'm gob smacked if it is?
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 08:17 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Mark Goodge:
> > Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > * Steve :
> > >> Is this right?
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >> "You cannot whitelist a sender or client in an access list to bypass
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:09 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk wrote:
>
> [1] http://www.postfix.org/header_checks.5.html
>
> Mark
Did you find that all on your own, or did you get some help with that?
I honestly can't be tossed to bother with the guy and raising
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:07 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> If there is a reproducible example where header_checks triggers on
> body content, then I will fix it.
>
> All I ask for is that conditions be independently reproducible.
>
> Wietse
In the meantime - how do I white-list this?
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:02:32 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: postfix users list
> Betreff: anti spam measures
> I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
> grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . With this configuration, I a
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:50:26 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Steve wrote:
> >
> > Original-Nachricht -
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100
> Von: mouss
> An: postfix users list
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Roman Gelfand a écrit :
> > I am running postfix with anti spam filter (policyd-weight, sqlgrey,
> > grossd, dkim, senderid-milter, dspam) . W
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:20:04 +0100
> Von: mouss
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Steve a écrit :
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:18 +0100
>
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:40:29 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> Well, it looks like, perhaps, I found the missing link. After adding
> s25r rules and HELO res
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:45:21 -0600
> Von: Kenneth Marshall
> An: Roman Gelfand
> CC: Steve , postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:40:29PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> > Well
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:47:11 +0100
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:45:21 -0600
> > Von:
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:08:39 -0500
> Von: Roman Gelfand
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: anti spam measures
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Steve wrote:
> >
> > Original-Nachricht -
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:02:38 +0100
> Von: RaSca
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Understanding Postfix and smtpd_recipient_restrictions priorities
> Hi all,
> I've got a setup with Debian Lenny, Postfix with MySQL(on a remote
> server in the
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:19:05 +0100
> Von: RaSca
> An: Postfix users
> Betreff: Re: Understanding Postfix and smtpd_recipient_restrictions priorities
> Il giorno Mer 13 Gen 2010 18:52:58 CET, Brian Evans - Postfix List ha
> scritto:
> [...]
> > In addi
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:49:49 +0100
> Von: Michael Reck
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
> Hi List,
>
> I`m looking for a SA replacement in an large scale enviroment.
> DSPAM seems to use filesystem (--with-use
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:40:40 +0100
> Von: Michael Reck
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: OT: Alternative for Spamassassin
> Zitat von Steve :
>
> >
> > Original-Nachricht
> >>
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:49 -0800
> Von: "Daniel L. Miller"
> An: Postfix users
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Daniel L. Miller put forth on 1/18/2010 12:51 PM:
> >
> >
> >> A point - and a good one for init
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:17:43 -0500
> Von: "Mark Nernberg (gmail account)"
> An: Steve
> CC: "postfix-users@postfix.org"
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 17:05,
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:06:13 -0500
> Von: "Mark Nernberg (gmail account)"
> An: Postfix users
> CC: Postfix users
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
>
>
> --
> sent from my mobile phone
>
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 18:54, wie...@porcupin
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:14 -0700
> Von: LuKreme
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: The method behind the madness
> On 18-Jan-2010, at 17:15, Steve wrote:
> > You don't seem to be very confident in your Anti-S
burned at the beginning a lot of time. But now it's like a perpetuum
mobile. It just works. A bunch of the rings I build around the users mail box
require some maintenance but mostly they are minimal (aka: ensuring that the
used RBL/RHBL/DNSWL/etc are all still alive, that none of the solutions jus
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:32:25 -0500
> Von: Ruben Safir
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: restricting acceptence of mail users except from local network
> How do I get postfix to reject mails "From" my own domains coming from
> outside the local
disconnecting the client.
So one has the possibility to add scoring and counting. Two factors that can
result in disconnecting the client.
And while I am at it: Add the possibility to have a negative score. So one
could combine DNSBL and DNSWL in one group (if you add group support) and have
a positive score for hits on DNSBL while having negative scores on hits against
DNSWL or have for example a negative score in case the connecting IP is NOT
found in a particular DNSBL.
> Wietse
>
// Steve
--
GMX DSL: Internet, Telefon und Entertainment für nur 19,99 EUR/mtl.!
http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:54:43 +0100
> Von: listadecorreo
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Spam from the same domain
>
> Hello
>
> in the last month I revived a lot of spam from user_non_ex...@mydomain
> to user_ex...@mydomain. can I bloc
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:13:25 +0100
> Von: Ansgar Wiechers
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Spam from the same domain
> On 2010-03-26 Steve wrote:
> > Von: listadecorreo
> >> in the last month I revived a lot
EJECT aviso.ci junk 2
endif
--
I have not tested the regexp. But I think you get the idea what I mean.
> Thanks,
>
// Steve
>
> /^((Received|X-((Origin(ating)?|Client|MDRemote|Sender)-?IP|(Client|Remote_)Addr|PHP-Script)):.+\b((41\.245
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:49 +0200
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:54:47 +0200
>
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0200
> Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:38:17PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Ohhh
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0200
> Von: Louis-David Mitterrand
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04:38:17PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Ohhh
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:12:58 +0200
> Von: "Steve"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
>
> Original-Nachricht
> > Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0200
>
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:00:36 +0300
> Von: Henrik K
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: max length of pcre rule?
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 04
ing the message body in the send folder to be chached
by the IMAP client). As far as I understood that BURL thing it helping to only
send the data once and the second data transfer is then done with BURL.
> Wietse
>
// Steve
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
On the IMAP server nothing gets saved.
But you are right. All the other clients that I know save the message on the
server or at least are able to save the message on the server. I never managed
to do that with Outlook without fancy macros/rules.
> --
> Viktor.
>
//
llowed to query that zone by updating allow-query. Most likely you
will not need to do anything because you are not authoritative for that
domain/zone but god only knows what else you will add to your named.conf so
limiting additionally inside the zone will not do any harm.
> -j
>
// Steve
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:52:57 -0500
> Von: Noel Jones
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: DNS RBL error
> On 4/19/2010 8:22 PM, Steve wrote:
> >
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Mon,
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:37:48 +0200
> Von: Ralf Hildebrandt
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> * Josh Cason :
>
> > As most of you guys know. I use mailscanner. I would like
> > recomendations of what else to
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:03:17 -0700
> Von: Bradley Giesbrecht
> An: postfix-users
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> Or sqlgrey, a fork of postgrey.
>
> http://sqlgrey.sourceforge.net/
>
Or GROSS (the only greylisting application that I k
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:54:22 +0300
> Von: Henrik K
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:02:52PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> >
> > Original-Nachricht --
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:09:43 +0300
> Von: Henrik K
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:16:43PM +0200, Steve wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you lo
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:03:27 +0200
> Von: Robert Schetterer
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> Am 16.07.2010 10:15, schrieb lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
> > Zitat von Robert Schetterer :
> >
> >> Am 16.07.2010 09:27
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:55:17 +0200
> Von: Mikael Bak
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> Steve wrote:
> [big snip]
> >> So you have made your point. You prefer (or are required) to
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:09:54 -0500
> Von: Kenneth Marshall
> An: Mikael Bak
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0200, Mikael Bak wrote:
> > St
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:44:23 -0400
> Von: Charles Marcus
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Better spam filter for postfix
> On 2010-07-16 2:04 PM, Steve wrote:
> > Using something like greylisting is no option either
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:23:06 +0200
> Von: Kai Krakow
> An: Postfix users
> Betreff: Re: postfix/local segfaults
> 2010/7/21 Wietse Venema :
> > That would be a compiler bug, possibly compiler version dependent.
>
> Yep, I'm sure it is. The postfix ebu
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:42:48 +0100
> Von: "Stefan G. Weichinger"
> An: Stan Hoeppner
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: fqrdns.pcre
> Am 09.12.2010 08:19, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> > Stefan G. Weichinger put forth on 12/8/2010 5:55 PM:
> >>
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:38:28 +0100
> Von: "Stefan G. Weichinger"
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: fqrdns.pcre
> Am 2010-12-09 21:59, schrieb Steve:
>
> > Hacking? Adding one additional BL to polic
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:46:35 +0100
> Von: "Stefan G. Weichinger"
> An: Steve
> CC: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: fqrdns.pcre
>
> We are getting quite off topic here, I assume.
> BLs aren't postfix, I
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:47:00 +0100
> Von: John Adams
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
> Am 12.01.2011 12:03, schrieb Jonathan Tripathy:
> >
> > On 12/01/11 10:45, John Doe wrote:
> >> From: Jonathan Tripathy
> >>
> >> > While
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:42:14 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote:
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Wed, 12
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:56:37 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> On 12/01/11 13:42, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
> >
> > On 12/01/11 13:36, Steve wrote:
&g
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:05:54 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> On 12/01/11 14:00, Steve wrote:
> > Original-Nachricht
> >> Datum: Wed, 12
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:25:04 +
> Von: Jonathan Tripathy
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Network Ideas
>
> > Hello Jonathan,
> >
> >> I think what I am getting confused over is whether or not your
> GlusterFS
> >> node are the same ar
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:38:28 -0200
> Von: Giovani Dardani
> An: Tomasz Chmielewski
> CC: postfix-us...@cloud9.net
> Betreff: Re: multiple relayhosts (fallback)?
> Why not a SLB, Its a nice solution .. :)
>
What is SLB?
> Smtp works very well with sl
how to implement
such a configuration. Is there something like that? What configuration option
would that be?
// Steve
--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:00:47 +0100
> Von: Ralf Hildebrandt
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Disable anouncment of STARTTLS on a per client basis
> * Steve :
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I think I have read s
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 09:26 +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote:
> On Mon, June 15, 2009 9:09 am, EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk said:
>
> > Probably a stupid question, but in practical terms is it possible to set
> > a header filter that will reject (or ideally defer) mail on time range?
> > For exa
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 11:48 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> EASY steve.h...@digitalcertainty.co.uk schrieb:
> > Probably a stupid question, but in practical terms is it possible to set
> > a header filter that will reject (or ideally defer) mail on time range?
> > For example during the hours of 00:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 13:13 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> Steve schrieb:
> > I have to be honest, I looked at Postfwd a couple of weeks back and it
> > left me with a bad feeling. It was utter dependency hell to install -
> >
>
> It's your decision, but the on
' for this?
Kind regards & Thanks,
Steve
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 08:43 -0400, Jorey Bump wrote:
> Steve wrote, at 06/17/2009 05:38 AM:
> > Hi List,
> >
> > I'm currently controlling 'spoofing' (from isendm...@tomyself.null to
> > isendm...@tomyself.null) using
IT'S AFTER MIDNIGHT
-- COME BACK IN THE MORNING"
It's an odd request to be able to 'offline' with a defer so I won't be
surprised if I can't do it, but I would be Cindy Ecstacy Ecstatic if I
could.
TIA.
Steve.
8.76.7.122])
Normally I see the same host value before and after the parentheses, and
I've only just spotted this and realised I'm not truly clear on what I'm
looking at here.
Does this translate to?
'helo' client hostname (rdns client hostname[connecting ip])
Or am I missing a beat on a core concept here?
TIA
Steve
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 12:21 +0530, J. Bakshi wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> Here is a very urgent problem with **relay** in my postfix.
>
> My postfix is allowed to relay a particular domain. I have put the
> configuration as
>
>
> relay_domains = < domian_name allowe
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 07:19 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 06:57:39AM +0100, Steve wrote:
>
> > I've just realised that I don't understand something clearly. I have
> > this top header in a mail;
> >
> > Received: from
imply stole from Sendmail.
That's blown it. How can I slate Barracuda for stealing from you, when
you steal from Sendmail. Why does life have to be so complicated? :-)
>
> Wietse
Thank you for clearing it up - really appreciated.
Steve
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 10:07 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Hi List,
> >
> > What is the quickest, easiest (and scriptable) way to have Postfix
> defer
> > everything with a 4xx error. It's an extension to my 'after
> midnight'
> &
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:23 -0500, Larry Stone wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Steve wrote:
>
> > I'm not so sure it's nonsense. Look at it this way if the office is
> > closed there is nobody there to deal with email. So it's pointless to
> > accept it.
>
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 13:23 -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
>
> Even if I was a local customer, the concept of "email only works when the
> lights are on" would make me look somewhere else.
That is your prerogative and I respect that. It depends on what your
core business is and how desperate you are I
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 21:21 +0200, Len Conrad wrote:
> >I think Barracude actually has a Postfix server on their appliance
>
> MailTraq and Barracuda SMTPD dialog phrases are verbatim stock postfix
> phrases, as far as I've seen.
>
> Len
>
LOL - they do, on port 2525. It's the part of the
Hi,
I'm sure I read a post here a while ago saying it was possible to set up
multiple queue directories and transports. I thought I had saved the
link therein, but I'll be darned if I can find it.
What I'm ideally looking to do is something like this;
[THE WILD] -> POSTFIX 'INBOUND' ?FINAL DEST
1 - 100 of 578 matches
Mail list logo
