I was wondering if it is possible to prevent the X-Ironport headers from being created for outgoing mail ?I know I can use strip-headers but its a lot of headers to strip with every mail and thus would be nicer to not even create them.
I have found that certain companies that send email to us get blocked in our ESA by SPF SoftFail.And I dug into their SPF record with the help of some sites and they all say that SPF pass while the Cisco says SoftFail so I was a bit lost why.But afte...
Hello,This is probably going to be a very easy question for most of you but it would help me quite a bit.What I want on one of our 3560 series switches is to prevent any broadcast and multicast traffice going to a port.The reason for this is that the...
Hello,I have just received two GLC-SX-MM fiber optic modules to go into two 3560G-24PS-E's and I was wondering if I can do that with a running 3560G ?It would save me a lot of hassle if I can just plug it in with an active 3560G.Thanks!
I have succesfully used stripheaders but do would like it if there was a feature to at least strip out headers with things like internal IP addresses etc. No need to advertise internal infrastructure imho.Currenly am stripping out these :
Hmm, looking further into the include mechanism of the RFC I perhaps am thinking that Cisco is wrong (sorry for going back and forth).This I have from the RFC :+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| A recursive che...
Thank you @Steflstefan that was the info I was looking for So cisco is correct and lots of spf check sites aren't (which was to be expected perhaps). But I also think a lot of mail configs are wrong then potentially. This is a madeup example (eventh...
@sw-magdeburg Could it be that your version still has to receive the fix through the updater service for your new version ? (new to ESA/SMA so take my suggestion as from a newby)
