[toaster] Headers

esses in the header? Seems like a security risk to me. Gary -- Gary Bowling GBCO.US [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [toaster] Headers

address. I don't have a problem with that being in the header, but the IP address pairs of the client machine I'm not all that comfortable with. Gary ____ Gary Bowling GBCO.US [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shane Chrisp wrote: On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 07:55 -

Re: [toaster] Headers

MTA's that do not have that information, so some servers can remove it or possibly just don't add it. It sounds like, at least from your knowledge, that it's not possibly to remove it in qmail. Thanks ________ Gary Bowling GBCO.US [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [toaster] Headers

for an admin who might be troubleshooting things. But it doesn't seem like the recipient needs to know that info. It actually seems as though the recipient could only use it for malicious activity and would have no legitimate use for it. Gary ____ Gary Bo

Re: [toaster] Headers

ueli heuer wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:14:50 -0500 Gary Bowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not that MS is very good at following the RFC's, but interesting. The MS-Server is behind the Firewall, isn't? do the ms-client use SMTP-AUTH to send emails? Don

[toaster] Bounced email question

nt: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: To User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: CC User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: SUBJETC Line Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YADA YADA note here. -- Gary Bowling GBCO.US [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [toaster] Bounced email question

e was sent to those users, this bounce came back. Thanks, Gary ____ Gary Bowling GBCO.US [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____ Tom Collins wrote: Gary Bowling said: --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 14943 inv

Re: [toaster] Bounced email question

([EMAIL PROTECTED]@69.153.196.90) by 0 with ESMTPA; 30 Jan 2008 11:44:34 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:44:34 -0600 From: Gary Bowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: GBCO.US User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071

[toaster] Question

I've been using the toaster for quite some time, with great results (thanks Bill for all the hard work!). I'm running the latest versions (although my clamAV may be out of date as that happens frequently). My system is a CentOS with the latest updates. I use most of the "add ons" such as spam

Re: [toaster] Question

Jeff: Thanks very much for the details. It will take me a bit to get through these suggestions, but they all sound very reasonable. I'll get back with results if all goes well, questions if they don't. Regards, Gary Jeff Koch wrote: Gary: I have seen most of these errors only on very hea

Re: [toaster] Question

ips and help!! Gary ________ Gary Bowling GBCO.US [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____ Gary Bowling wrote: Jeff: Thanks very much for the details. It will take me a bit to get through these suggestions, but they all sound very reasonable. I'll get back with results if all goes well

[toaster] Splitting the Toaster

I have struggled lately with my server utilization and am now planning to upgrade my hardware. It occurs to me that the majority of my utilization problems are due to spam and virus checking and not general email. How difficult is it to split the spam and clam components off to a different

Re: [toaster] Splitting the Toaster

Thanks for the help. Splitting out the spam scanning was quite easy (as you indicated). I added the following switch to the ./configure on simscan --enable-spamc-args="-d 10.x.x.x,127.0.0.1" Which allows spamc to call the remote machine and still use the localhost as a fallback in case som