Search Results

Search found 14 results on 1 pages for 'postini'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Configure Postini and emailreg.org

    - by crn
    One of our companies uses Postini services as our spam filtering service. Unfortunately, the company has been tagged as a spammer and we're trying to use emailreg.org to whitelist us. Emailreg.org wants us to add a CNAME which points to their domain (emaireg.org), while Postini has us add MX records (such as domainname.s7a1.psmtp.com. Here are my questions: 1. Can adding Emaireg's CNAME cause either Postini to not work or our emails to be lost? 2. Which is order of execution (do the email go to Postini and upon their return to EmailReg or is it the other way around)? 3. Is there anything of which I should be aware when using such a setup? Thanks, in advance, for all your help!

    Read the article

  • Emails : les services Postini font leur transition vers Google Apps, la marque sera complètement abandonnée

    Emails : les services Postini font leur transition vers Google Apps La marque sera complètement abandonnée Postini, le service d'archivage et de sécurisation d'email acquis par Google en 2007, sera intégré début 2013 aux offres professionnelles de Google Apps, ainsi qu'au Google Apps Vault, le service de découverte et d'archivage d'email. La marque Postini sera complètement abandonnée et ses anciens utilisateurs seront migrés vers Google Apps selon le schéma illustré dans le tableau suivant : [IMG]http://idelways.developpez.com/news/images/schema-migration.png[/IMG] Les différents clients recevront des renseignements de transition ainsi qu...

    Read the article

  • McAfee Secure Messaging Service / Postini: false positive?

    - by Martin
    Hello, I'm puzzled by this email message that gets quarantined by McAfee Secure Messaging Service (it's based on Postini) for no reason that I can think of. Here are the Postini headers: X-pstn-2strike: clear X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0 X-pstn-levels: (S: 0.02932/98.63596 CV:99.9000 FC:95.5390 LC:95.5390 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from [db-null] X-pstn-disposition: quarantine I read the docs (http://www.mcafee-sms.com/webdocs/admin%5Fee%5Fmcafee/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm?context=MACAFFHelp&file=header%5Foverview.html#951634) and in short, the x-pstn-settings header tells me that NONE of the filters was triggered, but the x-pstn-levels header tells me that the final score (0.02932) is low enough to classify the email as bulk/spam. Can anyone explain to me why the final score is so low when none of the filters were triggered? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to prevent this from happening? Regards, Martin

    Read the article

  • Exchange 2003 inbound routing issue

    - by user565712
    Just recently we started experiencing inbound routing issues. Email adddressed to [email protected] is intermittantly translated to [email protected]. This is happening for several users and, as stated, is intermittant. I don't know where to start looking for the solution. Is this an Exchange issue? A DNS issue? We have a single Exchange server inside our network with an FQDN of server.domain.local with a single SMTP Virtual Server. The Advanced properties of the Delivery tab of the Virt Server has an empty Masquerade Domain textbox and the value for the FDQN text-box is set to the domain itself, domain.com. The DNS record for domain.com is a CNAME entry referencing www.domain.com. Is this somehow related to the problem? I checked the headers of the inbound messages that generated NDRs as a result of being sent to [email protected] and nowhere in the header is www.domain.com mentioned. To make my life even more difficult, we use Postini as a third-party SPAM filtering service. Our MX records point to the Postini servers and Postini delivers the messages to our server. Perhaps it is Postini that is mucking things up? sigh I'm having trouble with this one and the intermittent aspect is making it that much more difficult for me. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Exchange 2007 ignoring Send Connectors (again)

    - by gravyface
    Wow, I'm at a loss here -- I posted this exact same question a while back and it's doing the exact same thing: my Send Connector I've created for "Microsoft Domains" (hotmail.com cost 1) is being ignored again and routed through the "Default" Send Connector (* cost 10). Last time, I had the same cost for both Send Connectors, but I've tried setting the Default connector to 5, 10, 100, etc. and regardless, all mail gets routed through that connector (which smarthosts through Postini). Besides calling an air strike on Redmond, what else can I do? MS is blocking Postini again, need to get this working permanently.

    Read the article

  • Does a receiving mail server (the ultimate destination) see emails delivered directly to it vs. to an external relay which then forwards them to it?

    - by Matt
    Let's say my users have accounts on some mail server mail.example.com. I currently have my mx record set to mail.example.com and all is good. Now let's say I want to have mails initially delivered to an external service (e.g. Postini. Note that this is not a postini-specific question though). In the normal situation where my mx is set directly to my mail server mail.example.com, sending MTAs will of course look up my MX and send to mail.example.com. In my new situation I'd have my mx set to mx.othermailservice.com and emails would be received there. OtherEmailService.com will then relay the emails (while keeping the return-path header the same) to mail.example.com. Do the emails that are received at mail.example.com after be relayed from the other service "look" any different than emails that go directly to it as would be the case where the mx was set to mail.example.com?

    Read the article

  • Botnets Keep Spam Volume High: Google

    <b>eSecurityPlanet:</b> "Botnets cranked out more spam and larger individual files containing spam in the first quarter of this year, according to the latest report from Postini, Google's e-mail filtering and security service."

    Read the article

  • Server compromised. Bounce message contains many email addresses message was not sent to

    - by Tim Duncklee
    This is not a dupe. Please read and understand the issue before marking this as a duplicate question that has been answered already. Several customers are reporting bounce messages like the one below. At first I thought their computers had a virus but then I received one that was server generated so the problem is with the server. I've inspected the logs and these email addresses do not appear in the logs. The only thing I see that I do not remember seeing in the past are entries like this: Apr 30 13:34:49 psa86 qmail-queue-handlers[20994]: hook_dir = '/var/qmail//handlers/before-queue' Apr 30 13:34:49 psa86 qmail-queue-handlers[20994]: recipient[3] = '[email protected]' Apr 30 13:34:49 psa86 qmail-queue-handlers[20994]: handlers dir = '/var/qmail//handlers/before-queue/recipient/[email protected]' I've searched here and the web and maybe I'm just not entering the right search terms but I find nothing on this issue. Does anyone know how a hacker would attach additional email addresses to a message at the server and have them not appear in the logs? CentOS release 5.4, Plesk 8.6, QMail 1.03 Hi. This is the qmail-send program at psa.aaaaaa.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[email protected]>: 82.201.133.227 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. Giving up on 82.201.133.227. <[email protected]>: 64.18.7.10 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 No such user - psmtp Giving up on 64.18.7.10. <[email protected]>: 173.194.68.27 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please try 550-5.1.1 double-checking the recipient's email address for typos or 550-5.1.1 unnecessary spaces. Learn more at 550 5.1.1 http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=6596 w8si1903qag.18 - gsmtp Giving up on 173.194.68.27. <[email protected]>: 207.115.36.23 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.2.1 <[email protected]>... Addressee unknown, relay=[174.142.62.210] Giving up on 207.115.36.23. <[email protected]>: 207.115.37.22 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.2.1 <[email protected]>... Addressee unknown, relay=[174.142.62.210] Giving up on 207.115.37.22. <[email protected]>: 207.115.37.20 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.2.1 <[email protected]>... Addressee unknown, relay=[174.142.62.210] Giving up on 207.115.37.20. <[email protected]>: 207.115.37.23 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.2.1 <[email protected]>... Addressee unknown, relay=[174.142.62.210] Giving up on 207.115.37.23. <[email protected]>: 207.115.36.22 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.2.1 <[email protected]>... Addressee unknown, relay=[174.142.62.210] Giving up on 207.115.36.22. <[email protected]>: 74.205.16.140 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts; no valid cert for gatewaying (#5.7.1) Giving up on 74.205.16.140. <[email protected]>: 207.115.36.20 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.2.1 <[email protected]>... Addressee unknown, relay=[174.142.62.210] Giving up on 207.115.36.20. <[email protected]>: 207.115.37.21 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.2.1 <[email protected]>... Addressee unknown, relay=[174.142.62.210] Giving up on 207.115.37.21. <[email protected]>: 192.169.41.23 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 554 qq Sorry, no valid recipients (#5.1.3) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: (qmail 15962 invoked from network); 1 May 2013 06:49:34 -0400 Received: from exprod6mo107.postini.com (64.18.1.18) by psa.aaaaaa.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 1 May 2013 06:49:34 -0400 Received: from aaaaaa.com (exprod6lut001.postini.com [64.18.1.199]) by exprod6mo107.postini.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 47F80B8CA4 for <[email protected]>; Wed, 1 May 2013 03:49:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Support" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Detected Potential Junk Mail Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 03:49:33 -0700 Dear [email protected], junk mail protection service has detected suspicious email message(s) since your last visit and directed them to your Message Center. You can inspect your suspicious email at: ... UPDATE: After not seeing this problem for a while, I personally sent a message and immediately got a bounce with several bad addresses that I know I did not send to. These are addresses that are not on my system or on the server. This problem happens with both Mac and Windows clients and with messages generated from Postini and sent to users on my system. This is NOT backscatter. If it was backscatter it would not have the contents of my message in it. UPDATE #2 Here is another bounce. This one was sent by me and the bounce came back immediately. Hi. This is the qmail-send program at psa.aaaaaa.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[email protected]>: 71.74.56.227 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>... User unknown Giving up on 71.74.56.227. <[email protected]>: Connected to 208.34.236.3 but sender was rejected. Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 This system is configured to reject mail from 174.142.62.210 [174.142.62.210] (Host blacklisted - Found on Realtime Black List server 'bl.mailspike.net') <[email protected]>: 66.96.80.22 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 552 sorry, mailbox [email protected] is over quota temporarily (#5.1.1) <[email protected]>: 83.145.109.52 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table Giving up on 83.145.109.52. <[email protected]>: 69.49.101.234 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 <[email protected]>... H:M12 [174.142.62.210] Connection refused due to abuse. Please see http://mailspike.org/anubis/lookup.html or contact your E-mail provider. Giving up on 69.49.101.234. <[email protected]>: 212.55.154.36 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550-The account has been suspended for inactivity 550 A conta do destinatario encontra-se suspensa por inactividade (#5.2.1) Giving up on 212.55.154.36. <[email protected]>: 199.168.90.102 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 552 Transaction [email protected] failed, remote said "550 No such user" (#5.1.1) <[email protected]>: 98.136.217.192 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to [email protected] cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta1210.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: (qmail 2618 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2013 22:32:51 -0400 Received: from 75-138-254-239.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com (HELO ?192.168.0.66?) (75.138.254.239) by psa.aaaaaa.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2013 22:32:48 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.34.0.120813 Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:32:39 -0500 Subject: Refinance From: Tim Duncklee <[email protected]> To: Scott jones <[email protected]> Message-ID: <CDD16A79.67344%[email protected]> Thread-Topic: Reference Thread-Index: Ac5gAp2QmTs+LRv0SEOy7AJTX2DWzQ== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="B_3453053568_12034440" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3453053568_12034440 Content-type: multipart/related; boundary="B_3453053568_11982218" --B_3453053568_11982218 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3453053568_12000660" --B_3453053568_12000660 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Scott, ... email body here ... Here are the relevant log entries: Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue[2616]: mail: all addreses are uncheckable - need to skip scanning (by deny mode) Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue[2616]: scan: the message(drweb.tmp.i2SY0n) sent by [email protected] to [email protected] should be passed without checks, because contains uncheckable addresses Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue-handlers[2617]: Handlers Filter before-queue for qmail started ... Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue-handlers[2617]: [email protected] Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue-handlers[2617]: [email protected] Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue-handlers[2617]: hook_dir = '/var/qmail//handlers/before-queue' Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue-handlers[2617]: recipient[3] = '[email protected]' Jun 2 22:32:50 psa qmail-queue-handlers[2617]: handlers dir = '/var/qmail//handlers/before-queue/recipient/[email protected]' Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail: 1370226771.060211 starting delivery 57: msg 1540285 to remote [email protected] Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail: 1370226771.060402 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail: 1370226771.060556 new msg 4915232 Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail: 1370226771.060671 info msg 4915232: bytes 687899 from <[email protected]> qp 2618 uid 2020 Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail-remote-handlers[2619]: Handlers Filter before-remote for qmail started ... Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail-queue-handlers[2617]: starter: submitter[2618] exited normally Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail-remote-handlers[2619]: from= Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail-remote-handlers[2619]: [email protected] Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail: 1370226771.078732 starting delivery 58: msg 4915232 to remote [email protected] Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail: 1370226771.078825 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail-remote-handlers[2621]: Handlers Filter before-remote for qmail started ... Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail-remote-handlers[2621]: [email protected] Jun 2 22:32:51 psa qmail-remote-handlers[2621]: [email protected]

    Read the article

  • Google Apps for Business : Google propose la signature chiffrée des mails pour lutter contre les spams, en utilisant la norme DKIM

    Google Apps for Business : Google propose la signature chiffrée des mails Pour lutter contre les spams, en utilisant la norme DKIM Dans sa lutte contre le fléau des spams, Google vient d'ajouter un outil à ses Google Apps for Business, sa suite professionnelle d'applications Cloud. En plus de Postini, cette suite se dote aujourd'hui d'une technologie spécialement conçue pour contre-carrer les spams et autres phishing. Le principe repose sur une identification chiffrée de l'identité de l'expéditeur, qui s'authentifie alors comme « sûr ». Cette protection utilise sur une norme déjà existante appelée « DomainKeys Identified Mail » (DKIM). La nouveautés est son intégration aux Google ...

    Read the article

  • Implementing Variable Envelope Return Path (VERP) using Exchange

    - by iammichael
    We're looking into implementing Variable Envelope Return Path (VERP) for improved bounce processing for our application. Our current mail infrastructure is MS Exchange 2007 but are in the process of upgrading to 2010. We're also implementing Postini for spam filtering. Exchange doesn't support sub-addressing (see also this question on disposable addresses) -- and VERP is somewhat of a specialized application of sub-addressing. Are there any options for implementing VERP in Exchange without putting another non-Exchange SMTP relay in front of Exchange to pre-process incoming messages? Specifically could a transport rule be created that could match against the target (non-existing) recipient, store that recipient address in a special header added to the message, and redirect the message to a pre-created mailbox? Note: we have developer resources available if custom code could be used somehow.

    Read the article

  • Filtering attachment types in Google Apps (free Google Business)

    - by Ernest
    We have Google apps in our company for mail delivery, our business can't pay the business version yet, however, we need to control the attachment types that employees download. We recently switched from another hosting provider who recomended us to plug Google Apps for mail when we moved the domain, we had a firewall before which was able to prevent certain file types to be downloaded. I know the business version has section for filtering mail (postini services). Is there a hack around my problem? Anyone ever had this problem? Thank you! UPDATE: The main problem is gmail apps uses ssl connection, can this be changed ? how can i get the firewall to filter files only allowing *.doc, *.xls y *.pdf.

    Read the article

  • Email postfix marked as spam by google

    - by Rodrigo Ferrari
    Hello friends, I searched about this question, found some few answers but no idea how to fix, the problem is that I realy dumb with all this! I configured the postfix and done everything how the install how to told. It send the email, but get marked as spam! The header is this one: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.223.86.203 with SMTP id t11cs837410fal; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:02:21 -0800 (PST) X-pstn-nxpr: disp=neutral, [email protected] X-pstn-nxp: bodyHash=9c6d0c64fa3a4d663c9968e9545c47d77ae0242e, headerHash=1ab8726bd17a23218309165bd20fe6e0911627cd, keyName=4, rcptHash=178929be6ed8451d98a4df01a463784e6c59b3b4, sourceip=174.121.4.154, version=1 Received: by 10.100.190.13 with SMTP id n13mr537609anf.76.1294833740396; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:02:20 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from psmtp.com ([74.125.245.168]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id w2si1297960anw.132.2011.01.12.04.02.19; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.121.4.154 as permitted sender) client-ip=174.121.4.154; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.121.4.154 as permitted sender) [email protected] Received: from source ([174.121.4.154]) by na3sys010amx168.postini.com ([74.125.244.10]) with SMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:02:19 GMT Received: from localhost (server [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by brasilyacht.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C121290142; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:50:29 -0200 (BRST) From: YachtBrasil <[email protected]> Reply-To: Vendas <[email protected]> Cc: YachtBrasil <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: teste Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:50:29 -0200 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <[email protected]> X-pstn-2strike: clear X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0 X-pstn-levels: (S: 1.96218/99.81787 CV:99.9000 FC:95.5390 LC:95.5390 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from <[email protected]> [db-null] I'm out of ideas on how to fix this, I think it's dns issue, but I have marked the spf inside my tinydns =( Is there anything I can check to know why this email is marked as spam? Any help will be appreciated! Thanks and sorry for my bad english.

    Read the article

1