Re: lmtp concurrency configuration
Hello Victor, Thank you so very much :) :) It worked like a charm and the queue is beautifully processed. I took that variable from: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html but I missed the point where it said: "This parameter is available in Postfix version 2.2 and earlier." My mistake the documentation is correct. Thanks once again, Luciana Victor Duchovni wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 07:48:53PM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote: Hello, Thx again for the replies, I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel :-) I have tried to disable the lmtp connection caching by setting the following variable on main.cf: lmtp_cache_connection=no Where did you get this variable from? See http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#lmtp_connection_cache_on_demand
Multiple sites (and mail servers) for one domain
Hello everyone.
I'm trying to set up a specific mail server configuration on 3 sites.
The first one is hosting a mailhub (with spam filter, etc.) and the
2 others are agencies.
The 2 agencies use the same domain (eg. edatis.com) for mailing.
I'm currently working on the first agency's server.
Accounts are stored in MySQL db replicated on the 2 sites from the hub.
So, my problem is : if I don't care about "transport" statements, all mail is
delivered on the local agency server, and if I do, mail is directly sent to
the other agency, without passing by the mailhub.
I need all outgoing email (remote agency or internet) to pass by the hub.
I found very few inaccurate info about this setup (seems kind of unusual) so
I'm asking for help. The objective is also supporting an undefined number of
agency with this principle.
Here are my conf files :
#
main.cf
smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP
biff = no
append_dot_mydomain = no
mydomain = edatis.net
myhostname = hermes-test.$mydomain
myfullhostname = $myhostname
mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 192.168.0.0/22
myorigin = $myhostname
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, , localhost
inet_interfaces = all
#virtual_alias_domains
virtual_alias_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virt-users.cf
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virt-aliases.cf
virtual_mailbox_domains = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virt-domains.cf
virtual_mailbox_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virt-boxes.cf
virtual_mailbox_base = /home/mail
virtual_uid_maps = static:103
virtual_gid_maps = static:107
relay_transport = smtp:mxhub.edatis.com
#relayhost = mxhub.edatis.com
transport_maps = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-virt-transports.cf
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
mailbox_size_limit = 0
recipient_delimiter = +
mysql-virt-aliases.cf
hosts = 127.0.0.1
user = x
password = y
dbname = maildbs
query = SELECT dest FROM aliases, domains WHERE aliases.local_part='%u' AND
domains.name='%d' AND aliases.domain_id=domains.id
mysql-virt-boxes.cf
hosts = 127.0.0.1
user = x
password = y
dbname = maildbs
query = SELECT CONCAT(domains.name,'/',users.local_part,'/') FROM users,
domains WHERE users.local_part='%u' AND domains.name='%d' AND
users.domain_id=domains.id
mysql-virt-domains.cf
hosts = 127.0.0.1
user = x
password = y
dbname = maildbs
query = SELECT name FROM domains WHERE name='%s'
mysql-virt-transports.cf
hosts = 127.0.0.1
user = x
password = y
dbname = maildbs
query = SELECT CONCAT('smtp:',agences.server) FROM agences,users,domains WHERE
agences.id=users.server_id and domains.id=users.domain_id and
domains.name='%d' and users.local_part='%u'
mysql-virt-users.cf
hosts = 127.0.0.1
user = x
password = y
dbname = maildbs
query = SELECT CONCAT(users.local_part, '@', domains.name) FROM users, domains
WHERE users.local_part='%u' AND domains.name='%d' AND
users.domain_id=domains.id
#
Let me know if you need more details
Thanks by advance
Regards
--
***
Jonathan Amiez
Administrateur système
j...@edatis.com
it-pa...@edatis.com
ad...@edatis.com
***
Re: customizing received: headers
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Keld Simonsen: > > For postfix proper, does postfix invoke the postfix sendmail command > > somewhere > > in the process as an MTA to deliver a mail, - for aliases expansion? > > The Postfix sendmail command RECEIVES mail INTO Postfix. > The Postfix sendmail command is not used to DELIVER mail. OK, What can you recommend to me to have postfix do VERP for a recipient listed in an alias file, and where this recipient is specified via an :include: statement? Best regards keld
Mail discarded
Hi, from a few days much incomings mails are blocked and in log file I have always 'discarded, UBE': Jun 24 13:10:23 mail postfix/qmgr[445]: CB6FD26A1AF: from=, size=49182, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jun 24 13:10:26 mail postfix/smtp[25251]: CB6FD26A1AF: to=, orig_to=y...@mydomain.com, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024, delay=4.2, delays=1.3/0/0.01/2.9, dsn=2.7.1, status=sent (250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, UBE, id=23600-10) Jun 24 13:10:26 mail postfix/qmgr[445]: CB6FD26A1AF: removed but the domain 'email.it' (but I have this problem with much mail domains) isn't in blacklist and this domain is certainly 'clean'. My doubt is for what reason these mail are blocked ? On my mail server I have SA-3.2.5 with postfix/amavisd-new/clamav. Thanks. -- Salvatore.
Re: Mail discarded
* sasashop : > Hi, from a few days much incomings mails are blocked and in log file > I have always 'discarded, UBE': > > Jun 24 13:10:23 mail postfix/qmgr[445]: CB6FD26A1AF: > from=, size=49182, nrcpt=1 (queue active) > Jun 24 13:10:26 mail postfix/smtp[25251]: CB6FD26A1AF: > to=, orig_to=y...@mydomain.com, > relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024, delay=4.2, delays=1.3/0/0.01/2.9, > dsn=2.7.1, status=sent (250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, UBE, id=23600-10) > Jun 24 13:10:26 mail postfix/qmgr[445]: CB6FD26A1AF: removed > > but the domain 'email.it' (but I have this problem with much mail > domains) isn't in blacklist and this domain is certainly 'clean'. > My doubt is for what reason these mail are blocked ? > On my mail server I have SA-3.2.5 with postfix/amavisd-new/clamav. Check the logs amavis is generating Grep for 23600-10 -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962 ralf.hildebra...@charite.de | http://www.charite.de
Re: Mail discarded
"Ralf Hildebrandt" wroted: Check the logs amavis is generating Grep for 23600-10 I have only log file '/var/log/mailllog' and in this log file I have, about "23600-10" only this: [r...@mail ~]# grep 2360010 /var/log/maillog Jun 24 13:10:26 mail postfix/smtp[25251]: CB6FD26A1AF: to=, orig_to=, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024, delay=4.2, delays=1.3/0/0.01/2.9, dsn=2.7.1, status=sent (250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, UBE, id=23600-10) Thanks. -- Salvatore.
Re: Mail discarded
* sasashop : > "Ralf Hildebrandt" wroted: > > > >Check the logs amavis is generating > >Grep for 23600-10 > > I have only log file '/var/log/mailllog' and in this log file I have, > about "23600-10" only this: > > [r...@mail ~]# grep 2360010 /var/log/maillog > Jun 24 13:10:26 mail postfix/smtp[25251]: CB6FD26A1AF: > to=, orig_to=, > relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024, delay=4.2, delays=1.3/0/0.01/2.9, > dsn=2.7.1, status=sent (250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, UBE, id=23600-10) Well, for the future you have to ramp up the loglevel for amavisd -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962 ralf.hildebra...@charite.de | http://www.charite.de
Re: customizing received: headers
Keld Simonsen: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Keld Simonsen: > > > For postfix proper, does postfix invoke the postfix sendmail command > > > somewhere > > > in the process as an MTA to deliver a mail, - for aliases expansion? > > > > The Postfix sendmail command RECEIVES mail INTO Postfix. > > The Postfix sendmail command is not used to DELIVER mail. > > OK, What can you recommend to me to have postfix do VERP > for a recipient listed in an alias file, and where this recipient > is specified via an :include: statement? You invoke "sendmail -XV ..." as per the instructions from Majordomo. Postfix VERP support works for remote and local recipients whether they are mailboxes or aliases. Wietse
Re: performance tuning - relay
HI Stan, Thanks for your feedback. I did try google for about an hour before turning to this list, I also read http://postfix.nctu.edu.tw/TUNING_README.html several times. It all starts making some sense after reading it a couple of times today. This is what I have done so far which works: Server1 (MX host) /etc/postfix/transport: server2.com:relayhigh:[10.0.2.73] /etc/postfix/main.cf: relayhigh_destination_concurrency_limit = 150 /etc/postfix/master.cf: relayhigh unix - - n - 200 smtp -o smtp_connect_timeout=1s -o fallback_relay= I tried putting the original setting back to original as your per suggestion, the mail count in the queue was still hovering at 9800 mark for about 15 minutes, going down at a rate of 10-15 per minute which was unsustainable. With the settings above, the queue is now down to 2442 within 20 minutes. It was at 21,000 mark when I sent my first email below (nearly 12 hours ago), so the progress has been very minimal until the change above. The bottleneck has now switched from Server1 queue to Server2 queue as server2 uses maildrop for local delivery. I would take any suggestions - the settings above are based from reading TUNING_README.html, it's trial and error. CP Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53:46AM -0500 Quoting Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com): : Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM: : : > /etc/postfix/transport: : > server2.com:relay:[10.0.2.73] : > : > /etc/postfix/master.cf: : > relay unix - - n - 200 smtp : > -o smtp_helo_timeout=3s : > -o smtp_connect_timeout=3s : > -o disable_dns_lookups=yes : > -o fallback_relay= : : This was answered by Wietse 4 years ago on this list. Took me ten seconds to : find it via Google. Read the entire thread on Neohapsis carefully and you'll : find your answer, which is to remove all this custom stuff and go back to the : defaults. The first 2 of 4 above are the cause of your immediate problem, as : they are wy too low. The other two are just unnecessary. And change : max_proc back to 100. You're probably not getting close to 100 processes : running anyway. : : http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-01/thread.html#1866 : : > Server 2 has the following configurations: : > : > /etc/postfix/master.cf: : > smtp inet n - - - 200 smtpd : : Change the max process limit back to 100. If everything else is configured : correctly, you can drain an unbelievable amount of mail with less than 100 : smtp/smtpd processes. : : > Could you please tell me what I'm missing here? I would like to improve : > the rate that Server1 can relay messages to Server2. : : If I may be frank, you missed the fact that you shouldn't mess with the : default settings unless you really know what you're doing. Custom settings : here would require an extreme scenario. I don't believe your scenario is : extreme, but rather common. I'm not pretending to be an expert on this, or to : create the image that _I_ know how/when to customize these settings. I simply : know when _not_ to. : : -- : Stan
OT: sid-milter package
Hi all! I'm trying to implement sid-milter with Postfix 2.7, but am having some problems while trying to compile release 1.0 under RHEL 5.5 (x86_64) as shown below, any ideas? otherwise, does anyone know where can I find an rpm package for my distro? Thanks in advance. make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ruser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/sid-filter' cc -O2 -I. -I../../libar -I../../libmarid -I../../sendmail -I../../include -DUSE_ARLIB -D_REENTRANT -DXP_MT -c -o sid-filter.o sid-filter.c cc -O2 -I. -I../../libar -I../../libmarid -I../../sendmail -I../../include -DUSE_ARLIB -D_REENTRANT -DXP_MT -c -o rfc2822.o rfc2822.c cc -O2 -I. -I../../libar -I../../libmarid -I../../sendmail -I../../include -DUSE_ARLIB -D_REENTRANT -DXP_MT -c -o util.o util.c cc -o sid-filter -lpthread sid-filter.o rfc2822.o util.o -lmilter /home/ruser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libar/libar.a /home/ruser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libmarid/libmarid.a /home/ruser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libsm/libsm.a -ldl sid-filter.o: In function `sid_decode_a': sid-filter.c:(.text+0x733): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x73e): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x7a0): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.o: In function `sid_marid_check': sid-filter.c:(.text+0xc6f): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0xc7a): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' sid-filter.c:(.text+0xf90): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x1533): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x1603): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' sid-filter.c:(.text+0x170a): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' /home/ruser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libar/libar.a(ar.o): In function `ar_sendquery': ar.c:(.text+0x15e7): undefined reference to `__res_nmkquery' /home/ruser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/libar/libar.a(ar.o): In function `ar_dispatcher': ar.c:(.text+0x2053): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' ar.c:(.text+0x207a): undefined reference to `__dn_skipname' ar.c:(.text+0x20d3): undefined reference to `__dn_expand' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [sid-filter] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ruser/data.software/sid-milter-1.0.0/obj.Linux.2.6.18-194.3.1.el5.x86_64/sid-filter' make: *** [all] Error 2 "Cuidar la naturaleza es vivir mejor... hag?moslo juntos. Imprime s?lo lo necesario." "La informaci?n transmitida en este mensaje est? destinada ?nicamente a la persona o entidad a la cual el mismo est? dirigido, y puede contener material confidencial, reservado o sujeto al secreto profesional. Cualquier revisi?n, retransmisi?n, divulgaci?n u otro uso de la misma, o la realizaci?n de cualquier acci?n basada en ella por personas o entidades distintas de la indicada, no est? permitida. Si usted ha recibido este mensaje por error, tenga la amabilidad de destruirlo, sin copiarlo ni divulgar su contenido. Muchas gracias." The information contained in this message is directed exclusively to the person or entity to whom the message is addressed, and it might contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. Any action based on it, performed by an individual or entity different from the one it was intended, is not allowed and its contents should not be read, forwarded, disclosed, or used in any other way. If you have received it by mistake please delete it from your system, you should also not copy the message nor disclose its contents to anyone. Thank you.
Re: customizing received: headers
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:56:49AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Keld Simonsen: > [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Keld Simonsen: > > > > For postfix proper, does postfix invoke the postfix sendmail command > > > > somewhere > > > > in the process as an MTA to deliver a mail, - for aliases expansion? > > > > > > The Postfix sendmail command RECEIVES mail INTO Postfix. > > > The Postfix sendmail command is not used to DELIVER mail. > > > > OK, What can you recommend to me to have postfix do VERP > > for a recipient listed in an alias file, and where this recipient > > is specified via an :include: statement? > > You invoke "sendmail -XV ..." as per the instructions from Majordomo. > > Postfix VERP support works for remote and local recipients > whether they are mailboxes or aliases. I am not using majordomo here, only postfix. So should I then have a sendmail -XV included in the alias file? I do not do that for majordomo. Or should I so something in master.cf with the SMPT handler or some such? Thanks for all your answers. best regards keld
Should I be removing first received header for client IP
Hi, this is more of a policy type of question, but I'm not sure who else to ask right now. We are a small webhosting/email hosting provider. We offer our clients authenticated SMTP relaying. One of our clients is complaining because we don't strip out the first Received header line that shows what their company IP address is when they send from say their Outlook client. They are claiming that as a proper hosting provider, we shouldn't be keeping that line in. They also think that because we leave that in that they are having their IP put on blacklists. So I'm wondering if that's true, have modern email relay server practices changed for some reason? Am I going to run into issues leaving it in? I looked around last night and found some pages talking about how to strip that line out, but I couldn't find any pages recommending that this is the preferred practice now or something. -- Mark Krenz IT Director Suso Technology Services, Inc.
Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On 6/25/2010 11:06 AM, Mark Krenz wrote: > > Hi, this is more of a policy type of question, but I'm not sure who > else to ask right now. > > We are a small webhosting/email hosting provider. We offer our > clients authenticated SMTP relaying. One of our clients is complaining > because we don't strip out the first Received header line that shows > what their company IP address is when they send from say their Outlook > client. They are claiming that as a proper hosting provider, we > shouldn't be keeping that line in. They also think that because we leave > that in that they are having their IP put on blacklists. > > So I'm wondering if that's true, have modern email relay server > practices changed for some reason? Am I going to run into issues > leaving it in? > > I looked around last night and found some pages talking about how to > strip that line out, but I couldn't find any pages recommending that > this is the preferred practice now or something. > > Mark, As far as I know, there's no need to strip it out. My personal server doesn't, my work email server doesn't, etc. Sounds to me like someone is blowing smoke, but I'll let far more experienced folks chime in before I make too many judgement calls! -Matt
Re: fail2ban for spamtraps
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 22:18, Peter Evans wrote: > If you are bored, you can turn on a catchall, pipe that to a bit > bucket and see how many you get. > In fact, here are some results for you. (no spam filters on the work > box due to > manglement fiat "IT COULD BE A SALE!!", using spamhaus zen would > ruin all the > fun.) I don't think I'd want to do a catchall. That would first require making sure every common role account is set up so as not to be in the catchall. But that would then make even more spam for the people reading the role accounts. We only have a few right now (abuse, contact, hr, info, postmaster, and resumes) and would rather keep it that way.
Re: performance tuning - relay
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53:46AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM: > > > /etc/postfix/transport: > > server2.com:relay:[10.0.2.73] > > > > /etc/postfix/master.cf: > > relay unix - - n - 200 smtp > > -o smtp_helo_timeout=3s > > -o smtp_connect_timeout=3s > > -o disable_dns_lookups=yes > > -o fallback_relay= > > This was answered by Wietse 4 years ago on this list. Took me ten seconds to > find it via Google. Read the entire thread on Neohapsis carefully and you'll > find your answer, which is to remove all this custom stuff and go back to the > defaults. The first 2 of 4 above are the cause of your immediate problem, as > they are wy too low. The other two are just unnecessary. And change > max_proc back to 100. You're probably not getting close to 100 processes > running anyway. The connect timeout is actually reasonable for internal destinations. The helo timeout is a bit light. Both are only useful if there are multiple internal servers, which seems unlikely given the "disable_dns_lookups=yes". Why is that setting there? It became obsolete with Postfix 2.0 which was released 8 years ago. The "fallback_relay" setting is correct, but even better is: -o smtp_fallback_relay= because the parameter has been renamed and the "fallback_relay" name is a legacy alias, so is not always effective if the underlying real variable is set in main.cf. -- Viktor.
Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On 6/25/2010 10:06 AM, Mark Krenz wrote: Hi, this is more of a policy type of question, but I'm not sure who else to ask right now. We are a small webhosting/email hosting provider. We offer our clients authenticated SMTP relaying. One of our clients is complaining because we don't strip out the first Received header line that shows what their company IP address is when they send from say their Outlook client. They are claiming that as a proper hosting provider, we shouldn't be keeping that line in. They also think that because we leave that in that they are having their IP put on blacklists. So I'm wondering if that's true, have modern email relay server practices changed for some reason? Am I going to run into issues leaving it in? I looked around last night and found some pages talking about how to strip that line out, but I couldn't find any pages recommending that this is the preferred practice now or something. No, it is not common practice to strip out Received: headers, and is not recommended. Some misconfigured spam filters check ALL received headers against RBLs, causing false rejects. If your customer frequently communicates with such a host, you may need to a) contact the postmaster at the recipient domain and explain their error and when that doesn't work you may need to b) remove or rewrite the header somehow -- examples are in the list archives. Also note that some spam filters will add points for messages with no prior Received: headers, so sometimes you can't win either way. -- Noel Jones
Re: Postfix helo.regexp file for stopping same to/from address
mouss wrote: Victor Duchovni a écrit : On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:20:23AM +0200, mouss wrote: This mail is coming from postini. if you use postini, there's nothing you can do with the envelope (and even if you do content filtering, you shouldn't reject mail. it's too late). Postini implement an SMTP proxy, not a store-and-forward relay, is that always true? don't they queue mail if the destination site responds with a 4xx? Only if you're paying them to be a mail spool as well as filtering proxy. -kgd
Re: [Postfix Users] Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 03:28:14PM GMT, Noel Jones [njo...@megan.vbhcs.org] said the following: > > Some misconfigured spam filters check ALL received headers > against RBLs, causing false rejects. If your customer > frequently communicates with such a host, you may need to a) > contact the postmaster at the recipient domain and explain > their error and when that doesn't work you may need to b) > remove or rewrite the header somehow -- examples are in the > list archives. I've been suspecting this is the case as well. Its good to get another opinion on this. > Also note that some spam filters will add points for messages > with no prior Received: headers, so sometimes you can't win > either way. How would they know if they didn't have a Received header for the client IP? Or do you mean if all prior Received headers were removed, including the relay? -- Mark Krenz IT Director Suso Technology Services, Inc.
Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On Friday 25 June 2010 16:06:26 Mark Krenz wrote: > > They also think that because we leave > that in that they are having their IP put on blacklists. Ask for the bounced emails or other evidence for why they believe this. I've seen all sorts of misunderstanding from people looking at such things, so simply ask for the evidence including headers for anything to do with spam. Simon
Re: [Postfix Users] Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On 6/25/2010 11:29 AM, Mark Krenz wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 03:28:14PM GMT, Noel Jones [njo...@megan.vbhcs.org] said the following: Also note that some spam filters will add points for messages with no prior Received: headers, so sometimes you can't win either way. How would they know if they didn't have a Received header for the client IP? Or do you mean if all prior Received headers were removed, including the relay? Some sites don't like mail with no Received: headers, ie. direct-from-host mail. Most bot spam arrives this way (or has forged Received: headers added). But lots of legit mail arrives this way too, so it's not a reliable indicator of spam. -- Noel Jones
Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:46:10PM GMT, Simon Waters [sim...@zynet.net] said the following: > > Ask for the bounced emails or other evidence for why they believe this. > > I've seen all sorts of misunderstanding from people looking at such things, > so > simply ask for the evidence including headers for anything to do with spam. > Is there a mailing list that would help me figure out how to get this information from the user? ;-) Believe me, I ask repeatedly for this information all the time and its like pulling rusty nails out of an old barn. You'd think that over the past decade I would have gotten better at coaxing users into giving me all the details I need up front, but its still just as hard. So many users are already in the blame the provider mode nowadays that you have to disarm them first before you can get anything across. -- Mark Krenz IT Director Suso Technology Services, Inc.
Re: customizing received: headers
On 6/25/2010 9:40 AM, Keld Simonsen wrote: I am not using majordomo here, only postfix. So should I then have a sendmail -XV included in the alias file? I do not do that for majordomo. Or should I so something in master.cf with the SMPT handler or some such? You submit the mail using "sendmail -XV ..."
Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 17:46:10 PM +0100, Simon Waters (sim...@zynet.net) wrote: > On Friday 25 June 2010 16:06:26 Mark Krenz wrote: > > > > They also think that because we leave > > that in that they are having their IP put on blacklists. > > Ask for the bounced emails or other evidence for why they believe this. FWIW, here's my case: http://stop.zona-m.net/digiworld/who-cancels-your-email-warning-infostrada-and-barracuda-users I *have* been put on a blacklist because the MTA of nexaima.net is on a fixed IP address which AFAIK is on no blacklist, but I relay through it from my home ADSL IP, which is a dynamic address. So I too would like to strip the first received header, exactly for that reason. Marco
basics for setting up postfix - is this sufficient?
Hello: I am looking for some pointers on how to set up postfix as a mail server. I am running ubuntu 8.04 server. I use DynDns free web host redirects - my domain is foo.homeunix.com, my isp (comcast) is 24.168.22.34 (fictious address), my ubuntu server has a static ip address of 192.168.0.100 and behind a cable modem router. I have configured my dynamic DNS host as a record ponted to an IP address to map my local server IP address to the comcast ISP address. (I run apache2 and http requests work fine). Question: Is this configuration sufficient to allow postscript on my server to operate as a mail server (when properly configured?) I assume for postfix config my FQDN is foo.homeunix.com? If not, what needs to be done? DynDns also has a service that sets the MX records for my host. Question: Do I need to configure the MX records for my host to make it email routing work? Question: Assuming the above is sufficient (and if necessary MX records configured), is there a guide that will explain how to configure postfix as an outbound only server? Alternative approach: If I want to configure Postfix as an outbound only server, relaying through my gmail account, how can this be done? Is the above configuration through DynDns sufficient? if not, what is missing. Thank you for your help -J -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/basics-for-setting-up-postfix---is-this-sufficient--tp28976882p28976882.html Sent from the Postfix mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: customizing received: headers
Keld Simonsen: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:56:49AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Keld Simonsen: > > [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > Keld Simonsen: > > > > > For postfix proper, does postfix invoke the postfix sendmail command > > > > > somewhere > > > > > in the process as an MTA to deliver a mail, - for aliases expansion? > > > > > > > > The Postfix sendmail command RECEIVES mail INTO Postfix. > > > > The Postfix sendmail command is not used to DELIVER mail. > > > > > > OK, What can you recommend to me to have postfix do VERP > > > for a recipient listed in an alias file, and where this recipient > > > is specified via an :include: statement? > > > > You invoke "sendmail -XV ..." as per the instructions from Majordomo. > > > > Postfix VERP support works for remote and local recipients > > whether they are mailboxes or aliases. > > I am not using majordomo here, only postfix. > > So should I then have a sendmail -XV included in the alias file? > I do not do that for majordomo. > Or should I so something in master.cf with the SMPT handler or some such? > > Thanks for all your answers. As documented in VERP_README, use "sendmail -XV ..." to submit mail. VERP_README does not tell you to change aliases, so don't do that. Wietse
Re: OT: sid-milter package
Jorge Andrea G Carminati a écrit : > Hi all! I'm trying to implement sid-milter with Postfix 2.7, but am > having some problems while trying to compile release 1.0 under RHEL 5.5 > (x86_64) as shown below, any ideas? you need to cotact the author of sid-milter or a corresponding forum/list. if you want my opinion: if it doesn't work as it is, forget about it... > [snip]
postfix "forgot my password" feature
Hi, I have a mail server with the postfix/Squirrelmail/Dovecot combination which I have user data on MySQL as virtual users. I have configured SM so that users can now change their own password. Is there any opensource solution to provide "self service password management" which would allow me to add the "I forgot my password. Lets reset it" feature ? For authentication, using some random personal data or personal question/answer combination would be enough I guess. Any idea ?
Re: postfix "forgot my password" feature
On 06/25/2010 11:44 PM, ms...@ciu.edu.tr wrote: Hi, I have a mail server with the postfix/Squirrelmail/Dovecot combination which I have user data on MySQL as virtual users. I have configured SM so that users can now change their own password. Is there any opensource solution to provide "self service password management" which would allow me to add the "I forgot my password. Lets reset it" feature ? For authentication, using some random personal data or personal question/answer combination would be enough I guess. Any idea ? Postfix is a mail server; it does not have passwords, nor any ability to change the ones it doesn't have. Perhaps Squirrelmail can do what you want, but the passwords you're talking about are not related to postfix. J.
Re: basics for setting up postfix - is this sufficient?
three_jeeps a écrit : > Hello: > I am looking for some pointers on how to set up postfix as a mail server. > I am running ubuntu 8.04 server. I use DynDns free web host redirects - my > domain is > foo.homeunix.com, my isp (comcast) is 24.168.22.34 (fictious address), my > ubuntu server has a > static ip address of 192.168.0.100 and behind a cable modem router. the "internal" IP (192.168) doesn't matter. does your provider "promiss" a static external IP? if not, imagine what happens if your IP is allocated to someonelse: your mail will go to a bad place. > > I have configured my dynamic DNS host as a record ponted to an IP address to > map my local server IP > address to the comcast ISP address. (I run apache2 and http requests work > fine). > Question: Is this configuration sufficient to allow postscript on my serve I guess: s/postscript/postfix... > to operate as a mail server > (when properly configured?) I assume for postfix config my FQDN is > foo.homeunix.com? > If not, what needs to be done? DynDns also has a service that sets the MX > records for my host. > Question: Do I need to configure the MX records for my host to make it email > routing work? if you want to receive mail for example.com, then you set up an MX for example.com. it's about mail to j...@example.com. it's not about the name of your machine. > > Question: Assuming the above is sufficient (and if necessary MX records > configured), is there a guide that > will explain how to configure postfix as an outbound only server? > check www.postfix.org. click on "documentation" and follow the links. in particular: http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_README.html null client and firewall setups should help you... > Alternative approach: If I want to configure Postfix as an outbound only > server, relaying through my > gmail account, how can this be done? that will certainly be better for "deliverability", but you need to setup smtp SASL (client side): http://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#client_sasl > Is the above configuration through > DynDns sufficient? if not, > what is missing. dyndns can do nothing about your reverse dns. your ISP decides what your PTR is. if it looks "suspicious", you'll have deliverability problems. a comcast origin isn't the best thing you can have:) so, go for the gmail approach. the good thing is that it should force you to learn more about smtp (in particular, SASL setup), which you won't regret.
Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:53:44PM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: > FWIW, here's my case: > > http://stop.zona-m.net/digiworld/who-cancels-your-email-warning-infostrada-and-barracuda-users > > I *have* been put on a blacklist because the MTA of nexaima.net is > on a fixed IP address which AFAIK is on no blacklist, but I relay > through it from my home ADSL IP, which is a dynamic address. You are on a blacklist at home along with most of the dynamic IP space in the world. Barracuda was improperly using that list. > So I too would like to strip the first received header, exactly > for that reason. Barracuda has fixed this bug already. They are aware that it IS a bug. You cannot possibly work around everybody's spamfighting bugs. And you will likely trigger other bugs with your changes. It was some time back now, but I have tested with Hotmail and confirmed that they will silently discard mail from a non-spammy host, if that mail has only one Received: header. Email is a mess. All you can do is do things right, and hope the other site does too. I know it doesn't feel like it, but this one really IS the other site's problem. -- Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
Re: Multiple sites (and mail servers) for one domain
Jonathan Amiez a écrit : > Hello everyone. > > I'm trying to set up a specific mail server configuration on 3 sites. > The first one is hosting a mailhub (with spam filter, etc.) and the > 2 others are agencies. > The 2 agencies use the same domain (eg. edatis.com) for mailing. > I'm currently working on the first agency's server. > Accounts are stored in MySQL db replicated on the 2 sites from the hub. > > So, my problem is : if I don't care about "transport" statements, all mail is > delivered on the local agency server, and if I do, mail is directly sent to > the other agency, without passing by the mailhub. > I need all outgoing email (remote agency or internet) to pass by the hub. > > I found very few inaccurate info about this setup (seems kind of unusual) so > I'm asking for help. The objective is also supporting an undefined number of > agency with this principle. > > Here are my conf files : > [snip] by default, mail goes to the MX of the domain. you can override that with local transport maps, but these maps only apply to you infrastructure. if you want mail to go to joe.example.com, you need to configure an MX record in DNS: example.com.MX 10 joe.example.com. (Warning: the leading dots aren't just for decoration). an excellent DNS resource is: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/
Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
Mark Krenz a écrit : > Hi, this is more of a policy type of question, but I'm not sure who > else to ask right now. > > We are a small webhosting/email hosting provider. We offer our > clients authenticated SMTP relaying. One of our clients is complaining > because we don't strip out the first Received header line that shows > what their company IP address is when they send from say their Outlook > client. They are claiming that as a proper hosting provider, we > shouldn't be keeping that line in. They also think that because we leave > that in that they are having their IP put on blacklists. they are wrong. - the RFC recommends that each gateway adds trace headers - it is ok to strip trace headers for privacy or whatever, as long as you take responsibility for that (and accept the consequences: for ex: troubleshooting is hader...). - if a remote site blocklist them because of that, then either: 1) the remote site is wrong (bogus barracuda setup?) 2) They do send spam. > > So I'm wondering if that's true, have modern email relay server > practices changed for some reason? Am I going to run into issues > leaving it in? If you want an argument for keeping the headers, check the smtp RFC. or: the customer can't hide behind your walls. you provide security and standard smtp services, not an "outbound smtp filtering service". if you don't allow others to blocklist them (if they do somethig wrong), then others will blocklist all of your networks, which isn't good for other customers. > > I looked around last night and found some pages talking about how to > strip that line out, but I couldn't find any pages recommending that > this is the preferred practice now or something. > it is ok to strip headers when you accept the consequences (responsibility in case of complaints, diagnistics...) if you're an ISP, then you shouldn't strip the headers. Google does that, but google are google (and that has been debated many times <= not here, so please don't run such a thread).
Re: OT: sid-milter package
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:39:18 +0200, mouss wrote: > Jorge Andrea G Carminati a écrit : >> Hi all! I'm trying to implement sid-milter with Postfix 2.7, but am >> having some problems while trying to compile release 1.0 under RHEL 5.5 >> (x86_64) as shown below, any ideas? > > you need to cotact the author of sid-milter or a corresponding > forum/list. if you want my opinion: if it doesn't work as it is, forget > about it... > > > i recently compiled sid-milter into a rpm without signatures http://ns.fakessh.eu/sid-milter-1.0.0-1.el5.i386.rpm work well on my centos 5.5 .spec is in a this post for building the rpm http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-fr/2009-December/000378.html >> [snip]
Re: customizing received: headers
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:20:56PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Keld Simonsen: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:56:49AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Keld Simonsen: > > > [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > > Keld Simonsen: > > > > > > For postfix proper, does postfix invoke the postfix sendmail > > > > > > command somewhere > > > > > > in the process as an MTA to deliver a mail, - for aliases expansion? > > > > > > > > > > The Postfix sendmail command RECEIVES mail INTO Postfix. > > > > > The Postfix sendmail command is not used to DELIVER mail. > > > > > > > > OK, What can you recommend to me to have postfix do VERP > > > > for a recipient listed in an alias file, and where this recipient > > > > is specified via an :include: statement? > > > > > > You invoke "sendmail -XV ..." as per the instructions from Majordomo. > > > > > > Postfix VERP support works for remote and local recipients > > > whether they are mailboxes or aliases. > > > > I am not using majordomo here, only postfix. > > > > So should I then have a sendmail -XV included in the alias file? > > I do not do that for majordomo. > > Or should I so something in master.cf with the SMPT handler or some such? > > > > Thanks for all your answers. > > As documented in VERP_README, use "sendmail -XV ..." to submit mail. > > VERP_README does not tell you to change aliases, so don't do that. I still don't get it. My scenario is: I - or somebody else - submit the mail from another machine by a mail command: mail listn...@domain.tld This goes into postfix at my domain.tld MTA. It gets expanded via my ailas file /etc/postfix/aliases : listname: :include: /some/file/in/filesystem I am now trying in the alias file something like listname: "|/user/sbin/sendmail -XV listnameinclude" listnameinclude: :include: /some/file/in/filesystem It does generate new from addresses, but not with info on the names in the include file. Best regards keld
Re: customizing received: headers
On 06/26/2010 01:01 AM, Keld Simonsen wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:20:56PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: Keld Simonsen: On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:56:49AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: Keld Simonsen: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: Keld Simonsen: For postfix proper, does postfix invoke the postfix sendmail command somewhere in the process as an MTA to deliver a mail, - for aliases expansion? The Postfix sendmail command RECEIVES mail INTO Postfix. The Postfix sendmail command is not used to DELIVER mail. OK, What can you recommend to me to have postfix do VERP for a recipient listed in an alias file, and where this recipient is specified via an :include: statement? You invoke "sendmail -XV ..." as per the instructions from Majordomo. Postfix VERP support works for remote and local recipients whether they are mailboxes or aliases. I am not using majordomo here, only postfix. So should I then have a sendmail -XV included in the alias file? I do not do that for majordomo. Or should I so something in master.cf with the SMPT handler or some such? Thanks for all your answers. As documented in VERP_README, use "sendmail -XV ..." to submit mail. VERP_README does not tell you to change aliases, so don't do that. I still don't get it. My scenario is: I - or somebody else - submit the mail from another machine by a mail command: mail listn...@domain.tld This goes into postfix at my domain.tld MTA. It gets expanded via my ailas file /etc/postfix/aliases : listname: :include: /some/file/in/filesystem I am now trying in the alias file something like listname: "|/user/sbin/sendmail -XV listnameinclude" listnameinclude: :include: /some/file/in/filesystem It does generate new from addresses, but not with info on the names in the include file. This is a weird construction. Sendmail has to know all the addresses UPON SUBMISSION to be able to modify the sender. Think about this. You are depending on alias expansion AFTER submission. It's not going to work. J.
Re: performance tuning - relay
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/25/2010 8:01 AM: > With the settings above, the queue is now down to 2442 within 20 > minutes. It was at 21,000 mark when I sent my first email below > (nearly 12 hours ago), so the progress has been very minimal until the > change above. The bottleneck has now switched from Server1 queue to > Server2 queue as server2 uses maildrop for local delivery. Can you provide some more specs on server2? IIRC you said you had a multidisk RAID array on serv2. What RAID level and how many disks? What filesystem? Are you running Courier with maildrop or the standalone maildrop with another IMAP server? What filtering, if any, are you doing with maildrop? Using mbox or maildir storage? IIRC you previously said you're BCC'ing _everything_ into a single mailbox (single address) on server2. Is this correct? And, lastly, was server2 in production for any amount of time before these problems occurred, prompting your post, or is this a new server that you just brought online? -- Stan
Re: [Postfix Users] Re: Should I be removing first received header for client IP
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:59:11PM GMT, /dev/rob0 [r...@gmx.co.uk] said the following: > > Email is a mess. All you can do is do things right, and hope the > other site does too. I know it doesn't feel like it, but this one > really IS the other site's problem. You said it. I often tell customers that get burned by bad practices of other companies on the net that the Internet is still a lot like the wild west and if you want protection from the crazyness, you just have to live in a town with a good sheriff. -- Mark Krenz IT Director Suso Technology Services, Inc.
Re: customizing received: headers
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 01:13:59AM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 06/26/2010 01:01 AM, Keld Simonsen wrote: > > > >My scenario is: > > > >I - or somebody else - submit the mail from another machine by a mail > >command: > > > > mail listn...@domain.tld > > > >This goes into postfix at my domain.tld MTA. > > > >It gets expanded via my ailas file /etc/postfix/aliases : > > > >listname: :include: /some/file/in/filesystem > > > > > > > >I am now trying in the alias file something like > > > > > >listname: "|/user/sbin/sendmail -XV listnameinclude" > >listnameinclude: :include: /some/file/in/filesystem > > > >It does generate new from addresses, but not with info on the > >names in the include file. > > This is a weird construction. > Sendmail has to know all the addresses UPON SUBMISSION to be able to > modify the sender. > Think about this. > > You are depending on alias expansion AFTER submission. > > It's not going to work. No it did not work. I also tried listname: "|/user/sbin/sendmail -XV :include: /some/file/in/filesystem" it did not work either - the include expansion was not done... Best regards keld
