similar to: Why deliver+usercheck? deliver+MTA?

I am runnig posfix on Centos 4.4 as a Mailgateway. It only accepts mails for domains and then forwards mails to Lotus domino Server. All clients sends outgoing mails to that Lotus domino Server. Then , That Lotus Domino Server sends mails to Postfix mailgateway. This postfix mailgateway sends mails to all the destinations. But, This Postfix mailgateway has about 150 messages in the mailq. Some

I'm using Dovecot LDA with Exim. I'm also using Dictionary Quotas in a MySQL database. I want to avoid backscatter completely, so I set "quota_full_tempfail = yes" and handle quota checking in the Exim RCPT ACL during the SMTP session. The problem lies in the case where a user's account is nearly full. Smaller messages will continue to come through, but a larger message

Hi, I have done configuration dovecot/exim/samba4ad. I use dovecot-lda not exim to deliver mail. And dovecot to authentify users. I have users with mail address on AD. When i sent mail to user mail address, its working. I have distribution group or group with mail address on AD and users as member of this groups. But when i send mail to group mail address, its not working Dovecot-lda can

On Jan 13, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: > > and what would that change? > nothing if you think about how mail works! > > * the MTA receives the message > * the MTA confirms with 2xx status code > * later the delivery server rejects > * the MTA *must* create a bounce > > just don't reject mails after you confirmed you

Dear all, I have been trying to get this problem out of the way but I just cant seem to get it right. I hope someone can point me in the right direction here. I have come up with a vacation script as below, which can be send out from my Postfix SMTP server to my smarthost at the ISP, and yet for some reason it is not sent out at my ISP server. The guys at the ISP have sent me the full error they

Yes, I've been reading /. :) But this isn't the first time this has occured to me. With all the security vulnerbilties, would it be unreasonable to either change the default MTA from sendmail to Exim/Qmail/Postfix, or give people the option of installing something instead of Sendmail at install time? -- Avleen Vig "Say no to cheese-eating surrender-monkeys"

Am 12.06.2020 um 02:03 schrieb Ralph Seichter: > * Andreas Born: > >> There exists one problem: at this stage of mail reception you have no >> body content nor header information on which a milter may perform >> deeper analysis, only envelope data. > > I am not sure what you mean by "this stage of mail reception", or what I meant the different stages when

I am sick of this gmail spam. Does anyone know a solution where I can do something like this: 1. received email from adcpni444 at gmail.com 2. system recognizes this email address has been 'whitelisted', continue with 7. 3. system recognizes as this email never been seen before 4. auto reply with something like (maybe with a wait time of x hours): Your message did not receive the

Robert Schetterer <robert at schetterer.org> writes: >> Anyway, why use lmtp over lda ? > > i.e avoid backscatter by overquota A clarification on this: backscatter (or rather, ambiguous NDR notices that claim many users are over quota rather than just one) is a result of a local mailer that support multiple recipient delivery in one invocation, but can only return one result

Hi All, This is probably a bit off-topic but does anyone have any idea about sizing MTA servers.?? We have about 200,000 emails/hr? incoming and outgoing.? I am intending using Exim and Spamassassin on each MTA.? How many servers using recent hardware would I need to cope with this mail throughput?? What is more important on the servers, CPU or RAM?? Should I have mail going both directions on

Dear list! I'd like to know if some- one has experience with system running no mta (aka sendmail). I have single comp, not server, not lan. Yes! Sendmail is nice, but it is too big for simple tasks I have for it. My intention is to use apps small as possible. This letter gone from mutt directly to ssmtp, that processed it to my isp. (Setting option for sendmail as

How can I disable mail delivery for a user yet still allow access to their mailbox from another account which their mail is shared to? If I put them in a userdb which has "deny = yes" that just disables their ability to login, yes? And they would still have mail delivered. I want to disable their ability to login AND bounce all mail delivered to them, preferably solely through dovecot

Hi, is there a sieve option that can reject a mail directly without creating a new mail and sending that out? I know about reject "Reject message goes here"; but I am looking for a mechanism that can reject Mail. Postfix can use reject_unverified_recipient to connect to LMTP and ask if a mail would successfully be enqueued and will return the status gotten from the LMTP server if not.

Hi, My situation is as follows. -An internet-facing spam filter relays email to destination mail server (Dovecot) with SMTP. - Dovecot should take email and deliver it to user's mailboxes. I guess I'd need LMTP for this. - An external SMTP relay is already in place. I am thinking of using Dovecot submission to relay to the external relaying cluster. So, both relaying and routing are done

On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:30 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: > > so what you want in your OP is just DISCARD in a sieve script and there is no point in "Using Dovecot LMTP it would be more optimal to kick a 5xx back" when the desired result is DISCARD > > why do you want the burden of keep the SMTP session with the client open until the mail is

All, For a production environment, I'd like to setup CentOS XEN guests as lightweight as possible. I'd like the XEN guests to be able to send nightly email as all CentOS servers do, but there is no reason to run a mail server as the CentOS Dom0 already has an email server running that can act as an email smart host. The options that seem most appealing to me are either ssmtp or sendmail

Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2) 1) deliver -e behavior the defaut? 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver send bounces itself)? The only reason it even works like it does currently is because I just mostly copied what Cyrus did.

Hi, I was unclear in my question. The spam filter is only able to deliver mail over SMTP, not over LMTP.. So I would still need some kind of daemon that listens for SMTP and then offers incoming email to Dovecot's LMTP socket. Met vriendelijke groeten, William Edwards T. 040 - 711 44 96 E. wedwards at cyberfusion.nl ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Roos (M.Roos at

Hi all, I've never really wanted to create my own MTA, because I like Postfix quite a lot. And I always thought it would require a horribly lot of time to be able to create something that was anywhere even close to having Postfix's features. (I would shudder to even think about recreating Dovecot from scratch nowadays.) But slowly over time I've also been thinking of ways how things

Hi list, I am using dovecot deliver for the local mail delivery with qmail. this is working fine. but when mail is sent to invalid user, it gets bounced back with error "I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long." rather "no mailbox here by that name" I could find proper solution, kindly guide to resolve it. /var/log/maillog Oct 24