similar to: please block user

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote: >> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com > >> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content >> that is not suitable for minors. > >> It is possible subscribed under different address. > >> IP of offending spam : >

On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > | Hash: SHA1 > | > | On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > | > On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote: > | >> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com > | > > | >> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote: > julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com > > Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content that > is not suitable for minors. > > It is possible subscribed under different address. > > IP of offending spam : > > Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com >

----- Original Message ----- | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | Hash: SHA1 | | On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin wrote: | > On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote: | >> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com | > | >> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content | >> that is not suitable for minors. | > | >> It is possible subscribed under different

On Wed, August 26, 2015 1:12 am, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 25/08/15 23:09, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >> On 25/08/15 20:39, Alice Wonder wrote: >>> julie70773 [at] loverhearts.com >> >>> Responded off-list to message on the list, spam with content >>> that is not suitable for minors. >>

On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote: > > > On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote: > <<>> > > something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will.. > >>> | >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com > > loverhearts.com is a single page that seems to do nothing. and

On 08/26/2015 02:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Wed, August 26, 2015 2:29 pm, Alice Wonder wrote: >> >> >> On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote: >>> On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>>> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote: >>> <<>> >>> something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will..

On Wed, August 26, 2015 2:29 pm, Alice Wonder wrote: > > > On 08/26/2015 12:11 PM, g wrote: >> On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote: >> <<>> >> something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will.. >>>> | >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com

On 08/26/15 13:11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Wed, August 26, 2015 12:55 pm, James A. Peltier wrote: <<>> something no one seems to have mentioned, so i will.. >> | >> Received: from mx2.loverhearts.com (mx2.loverhearts.com loverhearts.com is a single page that seems to do nothing. and there is nothing in page source to do anything. validator.w3.org shows 1 error and

On Wed, August 26, 2015 7:40 pm, zep wrote: > > > On 08/26/2015 08:22 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 8/26/2015 5:09 PM, Always Learning wrote: >>> Whoops. Lovehearts just arrived. They don't look like 'hearts' to me. >>> >>> Have complained to lovehearts.com owner = Swizzels Matlow Ltd, an >>> English company. >> >> its

On 8/26/2015 5:09 PM, Always Learning wrote: > Whoops. Lovehearts just arrived. They don't look like 'hearts' to me. > > Have complained to lovehearts.com owner = Swizzels Matlow Ltd, an > English company. its loverhearts.com, and they are also using heartslover.com for web links. the first domain is registered to someone claiming to be in Miami Florida, while the 2nd

Hello, I have a question in regards to specific dovecot replication behaviour and I'm just wondering if this is actually an expected/normal behaviour, or just a version issue. I'm using dovecot 2.3.16 which is packed by default with latest Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS server release. I setup dovecot replication pair (mx1 - mx2) which is working ok. MX1 has priority 10, MX2 has priority 20. I

I can confirm this in a slightly different setting, but still using two-way sync between two dovecots. On e is 2.3.19.1 running on macOS Monterey, the other is 2.3.20 running in an alpine container on Ubuntu. Gerben Wierda (LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerbenwierda>) R&A IT Strategy <https://ea.rna.nl/> (main site) Book: Chess and the Art of Enterprise?Architecture

Hi, I've been seeing errors logged for some time with replication processes, whereby replication sessions seem to be timing out periodically. This is with dovecot version 2.3.10.1 (a3d0e1171) and both are Gentoo x86_64. After some investigation I've determined that these timeouts are only ever occurring with tcps as the replication connection type. These errors never occur if

It might have a noticeable effect on clients. I encountered (probably triggered by this in some way?) that I was unable to het the 'read' bit set in macOS Mail.app. Maybe (as I am doing HA with round robin) the Mail.app client got to one dovecot repository on one tcp connection and then on the other. Is there a reason why syncing tis move from new to cur is a bad idea? Gerben Wierda

Our backup mail server (which I have just re-configured) tries to contact the primary mail server, and fails. My log shows repeatedly "connection refused": May 15 22:21:41 mx2 sm-mta-rx[8674]: q4FIhPij007483: makeconnection (mail.greenspot.fi. [83.143.217.182]) failed: Connection refused by mail.greenspot.fi. May 15 22:21:41 mx2 sm-mta-rx[8674]: q4FIhPij007483: to=<myuser at

Looks like one of my name servers (CentOS 5) gets a lot of malicious queries. The cpu load is constantly about 3 %. I put on stricter limits on who is allowed recursive queries, but this does not affect the CPU load. I also updated bind. I temporarily turned on querylog (command: rndc querylog), and noticed that I get over 200 queries like this per second: > Aug 17 07:41:38 mx2

> I don't know if it makes a difference, I don't have quotes on my > mail_plugins: I don't have quotes too (It's difference between config file and dovecot -n output) > Did you check permissons on the replication fifos? For what? I think that problems on slave. How it should work in automatic mode? I repeat that from slave manually all works fine: >> As I

Currently, we have two mail relays for inbound messages, and a third for POP. The inbound messages go thru all the CPU-intensive anti-spam stuff, and then they relay it to the POP server for pickup. Currently, one of these is the "primary", and the other is "secondary", and I'd like them to be considered more or less as equals, since the "primary" system is

I have a stock CentOS 5 system as far as email (sendmail) is concerned that is on our corporate LAN. I am not trying to set up a mail server; I merely want our CentOS systems to be able to send out emails. This works as long as the recipient's domain is our local domain. Any email send to recipients that are not in our local domain get stuck in the queue: # mailq