Re: non_smtpd_milters and canonical_maps - what goes first?
:-) >> I'm reading http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html and I'm still not >> quite sure. Both are performed by cleanup. What determines the order: >> which goes first and which goes then? I can't find any variable >> determining this... :-( Is it pre-defined (what order?). Can I force >> changing the order? > > Canonical maps replace headers or envelopes before the entire message > is received. Milters replace/add/delete envelope or content after > the entire message is received. I'm not quite sure if I understand the term you use: `before/after the entire message is received'. I'd really appreciate any clarification. BTW: Is there any way to change the order? Best regards, Marek
Re: non_smtpd_milters and canonical_maps - what goes first?
> > Canonical maps replace headers or envelopes before the entire message > > is received. Milters replace/add/delete envelope or content after > > the entire message is received. > > I'm not quite sure if I understand the term you use: `before/after the > entire message is received'. I'd really appreciate any clarification. > BTW: Is there any way to change the order? To answer the first question, 'before' refers to events that happen earlier than 'after'. Changing the order requires time travel or the ability to predict the future. The second question makes no sense at this point in time. Wietse
Re: non_smtpd_milters and canonical_maps - what goes first?
On 06/03/2017 02:13 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> Canonical maps replace headers or envelopes before the entire message >>> is received. Milters replace/add/delete envelope or content after >>> the entire message is received. >> >> I'm not quite sure if I understand the term you use: `before/after the >> entire message is received'. I'd really appreciate any clarification. >> BTW: Is there any way to change the order? > > To answer the first question, 'before' refers to events that happen > earlier than 'after'. Changing the order requires time travel or > the ability to predict the future. The second question makes no > sense at this point in time. ;-))) My question regarded: `the entire message is received'. With the stress on `entire'. I thought that local receives a message as a whole. You answer suggested that it receives messages partially. Some part, than the canonical starts working then the rest and then a milter operates? Best regards, Marek smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: non_smtpd_milters and canonical_maps - what goes first?
Marek Kozlowski: [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ] > On 06/03/2017 02:13 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > >>> Canonical maps replace headers or envelopes before the entire message > >>> is received. Milters replace/add/delete envelope or content after > >>> the entire message is received. > >> > >> I'm not quite sure if I understand the term you use: `before/after the > >> entire message is received'. I'd really appreciate any clarification. > >> BTW: Is there any way to change the order? > > > > To answer the first question, 'before' refers to events that happen > > earlier than 'after'. Changing the order requires time travel or > > the ability to predict the future. The second question makes no > > sense at this point in time. > > ;-))) > > My question regarded: `the entire message is received'. With the stress > on `entire'. I thought that local receives a message as a whole. You > answer suggested that it receives messages partially. Some part, than > the canonical starts working then the rest and then a milter operates? Perhaps surprisingly, Postfix uses the same Milter support for mail received from the network and from local submission. Mail in the postdrop queue is not received. It is waiting to be received by the Postfix mail system. Wietse
Re: non_smtpd_milters and canonical_maps - what goes first?
On 3 June 2017 at 14:01, Wietse Venema wrote: > Marek Kozlowski: > [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ] > > On 06/03/2017 02:13 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > >>> Canonical maps replace headers or envelopes before the entire message > > >>> is received. Milters replace/add/delete envelope or content after > > >>> the entire message is received. > > >> > > >> I'm not quite sure if I understand the term you use: `before/after the > > >> entire message is received'. I'd really appreciate any clarification. > > >> BTW: Is there any way to change the order? > > > > > > To answer the first question, 'before' refers to events that happen > > > earlier than 'after'. Changing the order requires time travel or > > > the ability to predict the future. The second question makes no > > > sense at this point in time. > > > > ;-))) > > > > My question regarded: `the entire message is received'. With the stress > > on `entire'. I thought that local receives a message as a whole. You > > answer suggested that it receives messages partially. Some part, than > > the canonical starts working then the rest and then a milter operates? > > Perhaps surprisingly, Postfix uses the same Milter support > for mail received from the network and from local submission. > Mail in the postdrop queue is not received. It is waiting > to be received by the Postfix mail system. > > Wietse > Time travel is one way to change the order (i.e. process milter before canonical_maps), but couldn't it also be done by re-injection? Time travel sounds more fun though, please provide working example.
Re: non_smtpd_milters and canonical_maps - what goes first?
Dominic Raferd: > On 3 June 2017 at 14:01, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Marek Kozlowski: > > [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ] > > > On 06/03/2017 02:13 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > >>> Canonical maps replace headers or envelopes before the entire message > > > >>> is received. Milters replace/add/delete envelope or content after > > > >>> the entire message is received. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not quite sure if I understand the term you use: `before/after the > > > >> entire message is received'. I'd really appreciate any clarification. > > > >> BTW: Is there any way to change the order? > > > > > > > > To answer the first question, 'before' refers to events that happen > > > > earlier than 'after'. Changing the order requires time travel or > > > > the ability to predict the future. The second question makes no > > > > sense at this point in time. > > > > > > ;-))) > > > > > > My question regarded: `the entire message is received'. With the stress > > > on `entire'. I thought that local receives a message as a whole. You > > > answer suggested that it receives messages partially. Some part, than > > > the canonical starts working then the rest and then a milter operates? > > > > Perhaps surprisingly, Postfix uses the same Milter support > > for mail received from the network and from local submission. > > Mail in the postdrop queue is not received. It is waiting > > to be received by the Postfix mail system. > > > > Wietse > > > > Time travel is one way to change the order (i.e. process milter before > canonical_maps), but couldn't it also be done by re-injection? > > Time travel sounds more fun though, please provide working example. Agreed, one can always do different transformations during different traversals through Postfix, but I suspect that the requestor had a simpler approach in mind. Wietse
New mail subdomain versus existing domain issues
I'm setting up a new server with the goal of using letsencrypt versus my self signed cert. (I'm also going to try those SpamAssassin alternatives that require less RAM.) So I will run two VPS for a period as I debug the new server. That said, is there any way to implement email going to both example.com and mail.example.com. That is I intend the email servers to be different. Seems to me maybe Dovecot won't mind but I don't see this working with postfix. Or should I just register a new top level domain for testing? While I'm at it, is it suggested that email and Web use different certificates.
Changing "mail from"
Hello, We have a few forwarders where we need to change the "mail from" during the SMTP stage. Nothing else has to change and I know that spam would be seen as coming from our mail server if we forward it. This last part is acceptable for us. On the mail server that we want to retire this is done (but this is Sendmail and difficult to maintain, so we want to switch to Postfix but keeping this behavior). Is it possible with Postfix to do this or do I need to look for a milter or something else to do this? Regards, Mark
Re: Changing "mail from"
:-) On 06/04/2017 07:58 AM, Mark Scholten wrote: > Hello, > > We have a few forwarders where we need to change the "mail from" during the > SMTP stage. Nothing else has to change and I know that spam would be seen as > coming from our mail server if we forward it. This last part is acceptable > for us. On the mail server that we want to retire this is done (but this is > Sendmail and difficult to maintain, so we want to switch to Postfix but > keeping this behavior). > > Is it possible with Postfix to do this or do I need to look for a milter or > something else to do this? canonical? Best regards, Marek PS. Be careful if using some SRS software (for example postsrsd) cause it may interact with canonical!
RE: Changing "mail from"
> -Original Message- > From: Marek Kozlowski [mailto:m.kozlow...@mini.pw.edu.pl] > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 8:04 > To: Mark Scholten; postfix-users@postfix.org > Subject: Re: Changing "mail from" > > :-) > > On 06/04/2017 07:58 AM, Mark Scholten wrote: > > Hello, > > > > We have a few forwarders where we need to change the "mail from" > > during the SMTP stage. Nothing else has to change and I know that spam > > would be seen as coming from our mail server if we forward it. This > > last part is acceptable for us. On the mail server that we want to > > retire this is done (but this is Sendmail and difficult to maintain, > > so we want to switch to Postfix but keeping this behavior). > > > > Is it possible with Postfix to do this or do I need to look for a > > milter or something else to do this? > > canonical? > > Best regards, > Marek > > PS. Be careful if using some SRS software (for example postsrsd) cause it may > interact with canonical! Hello Marek, I did check if this works. However it seems to not work for me (or I'm missing a setting). Maybe an example for what I want to do helps. Mail is sent to m...@mynoc.eu and forwarder to m...@streamservice.nl. In that case I want the mail from to be m...@mynoc.eu, I don't care about the original address in the mail from during the SMTP stage. Every other location where the original mail address is listed doesn't have to be changed (eg in the mail headers including the "From" line). Kind regards, Mark Scholten
Re: Changing "mail from"
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 08:04:14AM +0200, Marek Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/04/2017 07:58 AM, Mark Scholten wrote: >> Hello, >> >> We have a few forwarders where we need to change the "mail from" >> during the SMTP stage. Nothing else has to change and I know that >> spam would be seen as coming from our mail server if we forward >> it. This last part is acceptable for us. On the mail server that we >> want to retire this is done (but this is Sendmail and difficult to >> maintain, so we want to switch to Postfix but keeping this >> behavior). >> >> Is it possible with Postfix to do this or do I need to look for a >> milter or something else to do this? > > canonical? Pretty sure that PCRE header_checks will do that fairly effectively, it'll do a find and replace. Though admittedly my use of it is minimal; to remove the IP that gives away my physical location (so headers match mail sent via ssh session into the server without actually having to do that every time). That's a fairly trivial change since it just removes two headers. In your case you probably want to change the From and/or Sender, both of which should be achievable with header_checks. Maybe the Return-Path as well, but I'm not sure if it'll work on that. Regards, Ben signature.asc Description: PGP signature
