Re: RBL question and their performance stats for me
- View SourceLe Fri 1/12/2006, Victor Duchovni disait
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 05:58:56PM -0500, Harvey Smith wrote:Except if you do not want to filter what PBL filters.
> > Also it may not be prudent to start using the zen list now as spamhaus
> > is not advertising it yet and it is the same as sbl-xbl anyway except for
> > the fact that in the future (Demember maybe) the pbl will be added in
> > and you will all of a sudden be using pbl without having tested it
> > first. You do test the lists you use first I hope.
> They have not launched a marketing campaign telling everyone to switch,
> but they have on various fora said that zen is ready and live, and that
> there is no reason to not switch from sbl-xbl to zen.
- View SourceOn Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 08:55:22AM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > They have not launched a marketing campaign telling everyone to switch,#
> > but they have on various fora said that zen is ready and live, and that
> > there is no reason to not switch from sbl-xbl to zen.
> Except if you do not want to filter what PBL filters.
# SpamHaus SBL
# SpamHaus XBL, CBL portion
# SpamHaus XBL, NJABL portion
# SpamHaus PBL
These five restrictions cost only one DNS lookup, and one can decide which
of the five to use (order not significant). I don't know definitively
which of the PBL IPs signals volunteered data and which signals SpamHaus
additional data, but it is reasonable to assume that the two distinct
IP addresses are reserved for a reason.
Given that 127.0.0.2 and 192.0.2.0 map to 127.0.0.11, and these are not
volunteered by their ISPs, it looks .11 is SpamHaus data, and .10 is
SpamHaus is not in the business of making it difficult for users to
use their lists by mixing oil and water...
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
- View SourceWhen upgrading from 2.2.10 to 2.3.0 and then running the new version I get
Dec 1 08:47:42 pluto postfix/postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail
Dec 1 08:47:42 pluto postfix/master: daemon started -- version
2.3.0, configuration /etc/postfix
Dec 1 08:47:44 pluto postfix/smtpd: warning: unsupported SASL server
Dec 1 08:47:44 pluto postfix/smtpd: fatal: SASL per-process
Dec 1 08:47:45 pluto postfix/master: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/smtpd pid 26834 exit status 1
Dec 1 08:47:45 pluto postfix/master: warning:
/usr/libexec/postfix/smtpd: bad command startup -- throttling
I compile postfix like this:
make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -I/usr/include/sasl"
I'm not really seeing the reason after searching google...
Any help appreciated.
- View Source* Joey <Joey@...>:
> I compile postfix like this:You didn't read the RELEASE_NOTES!
> make tidy
> make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -I/usr/include/sasl"
> AUXLIBS="-L/usr/lib -lsasl2"
> make upgrade
[Incompat 20051220] The Postfix-with-Cyrus-SASL build procedure has
changed. You now need to specify -DUSE_CYRUS_SASL in addition to
-DUSE_SASL_AUTH or else you end up without any Cyrus SASL support.
The error messages are:
unsupported SASL server implementation: cyrus
unsupported SASL client implementation: cyrus
Ralf Hildebrandt (Ralf.Hildebrandt@...) plonk@...
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
PP: MMDF gone mad with standards fever. Think "Brazil".