> error: msgid=<433788c81ea044c4ae49cb39a6f67...@alb-dc-exc08.clpl.INTERN>:
> failed to store into mailbox 'ABC': Internal error occurred. Refer to server
> log for more information. [2022-04-28
> 07:41:10].
>
> Which "server log" is meant in this error message?
This would be your mail logs,
> On 05-09-2022 11:05 am, Charles Gresham wrote:
> 1, Customer created a mailbox (aka subfolder) "ABC" and setup a Pigeonhole
> Sieve script to file the messages into it. So fine, so good. All seemed to
> work out
> well.
>
> 2. Customer renamed the mailbox to, let's say, "CDE" and did not chang
Hi
If the target folder of a sieve script is not existing or doesn't have
the privileges needed, then the email will be stored in INBOX instead.
Therefore, no email lost ;-)
Kind regards,
Christian Mack
Am 09.05.22 um 17:05 schrieb Charles Gresham:
Hi all,
we face the following situation:
Hi all,
we face the following situation:
1, Customer created a mailbox (aka subfolder) "ABC" and setup a Pigeonhole
Sieve script to file the messages into it. So fine, so good. All seemed to work
out well.
2. Customer renamed the mailbox to, let's say, "CDE" and did not change the
Sieve scrip
On 2021-11-17 05:17, Mike wrote:
I've been trying to work out how to get postfix to accept mail, send
it to bogofilter, then deliver using dovecot while allowing a global
sieve filter and users able to filter mail based on the bogofilter
header.
https://stuff.mit.edu/~jik/software/bogofilter-mi
> Op 17 nov. 2021 om 06:10 heeft Mike het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
> I've been trying to work out how to get postfix to accept mail, send it to
> bogofilter, then deliver using dovecot while allowing a global sieve filter
> and users able to filter mail based on the bogofilter header.
>
I've been trying to work out how to get postfix to accept mail, send
it to bogofilter, then deliver using dovecot while allowing a global
sieve filter and users able to filter mail based on the bogofilter
header.
I've been successful at getting it to add the bogofilter header as
needed
On 20/09/2021 09:05, j.emerlik wrote:
After I deleted "envelope" from the "require":
if address :is "from" "*" {
set :lower "from" "${1}";
}
You need to use :matches rather than :is.
It returns: null
Null? That doesn't make sense. It should return the empty string if you
do stuff li
After I deleted "envelope" from the "require":
if address :is "from" "*" {
set :lower "from" "${1}";
}
It returns: null
if header :matches "From" "*" {
set "address" ": ${1}";
}
It returns address as: "some string"
pon., 20 wrz 2021 o 01:44 Gedalya napisał(a):
> On 9/20/21 03:
On 9/20/21 03:15, j.emerlik wrote:
> "If address :is "from" "*" { .. } - I have same error.
Quote:
Error: sieve: report-ham: line 1: the envelope extension cannot be used in this
context (needs access to message envelope)
It says "line 1", that's your "require" line. You need to remove "envelop
Den 19.09.2021 16:37, skrev Gedalya:
On 9/19/21 21:24, j.emerlik wrote:
Error: sieve: report-ham: line 1: the envelope extension cannot be used in this
context (needs access to message envelope)
My guess would be that the envelope is not available because this is sieve
running in IMAP, not
Yes, it's plugin imap_sieve enabled for IMAP protocol.
There isn't no way to catch address "from" when moving messages between
IMAP folders ?
"If address :is "from" "*" { .. } - I have same error.
niedz., 19 wrz 2021, 16:38 użytkownik Gedalya napisał:
> On 9/19/21 21:24, j.emerlik wrote:
> >
>
On 9/19/21 21:24, j.emerlik wrote:
>
> Error: sieve: report-ham: line 1: the envelope extension cannot be used in
> this context (needs access to message envelope)
>
My guess would be that the envelope is not available because this is sieve
running in IMAP, not during delivery.
If the From: head
I'm have a problem where dovecot-sieve is used to run the script after
moving emails from Junk Folder.
config:
imapsieve_mailbox2_name = *
Imapsieve_mailbox2_from = INBOX.Junk
imapsieve_mailbox2_causes = COPY
imapsieve_mailbox2_before =
file:/usr/local/lib/dovecot/sieve/report-ham.sieve
f
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Stephan Bosch via dovecot wrote:
>
>
> On 17/08/2018 09:14, Stephan Bosch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Op 14/05/2018 om 23:03 schreef James Cassell:
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Op 25/04/2018 om 22:49 schreef James Cassell:
On 17/08/2018 09:14, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Op 14/05/2018 om 23:03 schreef James Cassell:
On Mon, May 14, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Op 25/04/2018 om 22:49 schreef James Cassell:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Specify the ID used for duplicate checking
On Sep 12, 2019, at 12:57 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> The next step, I throw the email-incoming-unsorted mbox file at a
> sieve processor, to sort the emails from that mbox, into other
> mboxes, according to the sieve rules file.
I would expect mbox is the worst possible format choice for this.
Oh, one last bit for now regarding pipeing:
Given my current sieve-filter command:
MLOC="mail_location=mbox:~/mail:INBOX=~/mail/Inbox:INDEX=:UTF-8:VOLATILEDIR=/tmp/dovecot-volatile/%2.256Nu/%u:SUBSCRIPTIONS=dovecot_subscriptions"
SCRIPT=~/etc/email/sieve.rc
sieve-filter -veWD -c $SIEVE_CONF -o $
(I did subscribe to this mailing list, albeit with zen at
freedbms.net, so either way I'm getting all your emails - thank you
-so- much for replying...)
MUA is mutt, reading email in a terminal (sorry, forgot to mention this before).
For many years now my email folder (mbox files) collection has
comparison with Gnu sieve).
>
> TIA,
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Zenaan Harkness -
>
> From: Zenaan Harkness
> To: debian-u...@lists.debian.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:06:12 +1000
> Subject: Re: Gnu sieve vs Dovecot sieve-filter - sieve-filter ext
org
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:06:12 +1000
Subject: Re: Gnu sieve vs Dovecot sieve-filter - sieve-filter extremely slow at
lda (writing emails to local mbox files)
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:55:23AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Why is Gnu sieve so extremely fast to batch process an mbox file, bu
On 17/08/2019 15:37, JM via dovecot wrote:
Hi,
We have mail server in production, with Exim + Dovecot + Mailman +
OpenLDAP + Roundcube webmail server.
Openldap keeps mail accounts in db, exim uses lmtp transport to
deliver messages to dovecot.
Mailman is responsible for mailing lists, Round
Hi,
We have mail server in production, with Exim + Dovecot + Mailman + OpenLDAP
+ Roundcube webmail server.
Openldap keeps mail accounts in db, exim uses lmtp transport to deliver
messages to dovecot.
Mailman is responsible for mailing lists, Roundcube webmail has managsieve
module to create sieve
onfiguration lines in dovecot/dovecot.conf:
plugin {
sieve = /etc/dovecot/sieve/default.sieve
}
protocol lda {
mail_plugins = $mail_plugins sieve
}
The appropriate mail.log lines:
Aug 13 15:49:37 zg-3 postfix/smtpd[16296]: connect from
smarthost06.digicable.hu[94.21.128.16]
Aug 13 15:49:37 zg-3
Am 2019-08-06 15:04, schrieb Nagy Tibor via dovecot:
I have an *Ubuntu 16.04* mail server with
postfix/spamassassin/*dovecot-2.2.2**2* with virtual mailboxes in
maildir format. The whole process is working excellently since a year.
Spams are marked with "*SPAM*" in subject and with
"X-Spa
mespace {
inbox = yes
location =
prefix =
separator = /
}
passdb {
args = /etc/dovecot/passwd
driver = passwd-file
}
plugin {
sieve = /etc/dovecot/sieve/default.sieve
}
protocols = imap pop3
service auth {
executable = /usr/lib/dovecot/auth
unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth {
Op 14/05/2018 om 23:03 schreef James Cassell:
On Mon, May 14, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Op 25/04/2018 om 22:49 schreef James Cassell:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Specify the ID used for duplicate checking explicitly using the
:uniqueid argument (htt
On Mon, May 14, 2018, at 4:52 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
>
>
> Op 25/04/2018 om 22:49 schreef James Cassell:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
> >>
> >> Specify the ID used for duplicate checking explicitly using the
> >> :uniqueid argument (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf
Op 25/04/2018 om 22:49 schreef James Cassell:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Specify the ID used for duplicate checking explicitly using the
:uniqueid argument (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7352#section-3.1).
Using the variables extenion, compose the uniqueid from th
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Stephan Bosch wrote:
>
>
> Op 23/04/2018 om 22:03 schreef André Rodier:
> > On 23/04/18 14:18, Stephan Bosch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Op 11-4-2018 om 23:58 schreef André Rodier:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I have tested the sieve duplicate script with success so far,
On 25/04/18 20:20, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Op 23/04/2018 om 22:03 schreef André Rodier:
On 23/04/18 14:18, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Op 11-4-2018 om 23:58 schreef André Rodier:
Hello,
I have tested the sieve duplicate script with success so far, but I
have
a question.
Sieve duplicate script?
Op 23/04/2018 om 22:03 schreef André Rodier:
On 23/04/18 14:18, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Op 11-4-2018 om 23:58 schreef André Rodier:
Hello,
I have tested the sieve duplicate script with success so far, but I
have
a question.
Sieve duplicate script? You mean the Sieve duplicate extension (R
On 23/04/18 14:18, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Op 11-4-2018 om 23:58 schreef André Rodier:
Hello,
I have tested the sieve duplicate script with success so far, but I have
a question.
Sieve duplicate script? You mean the Sieve duplicate extension (RFC 7352)?
I would like to know if the "duplicate
Op 11-4-2018 om 23:58 schreef André Rodier:
Hello,
I have tested the sieve duplicate script with success so far, but I have
a question.
Sieve duplicate script? You mean the Sieve duplicate extension (RFC 7352)?
I would like to know if the "duplicate" sieve flag in Dovecot is global
to all
Hello,
I have tested the sieve duplicate script with success so far, but I have
a question.
I would like to know if the "duplicate" sieve flag in Dovecot is global
to all folders, or specific to one folder only.
For instance, if I copy an email from one folder to another, and I have
a discard ac
dovecot sieve
Hello list.
I have just a generic question. Exim delivers fine to dovecot-lda. My
problems are the logfiles. Whenever I recieve a message
Exim writes to dovecot.log as the user who recieves the mail. This
forces me to have that logfile world writeable. I don't
really like that. H
I use lmtp with exim.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message From: himbe...@shinymail.de Date: 2/21/18
11:59 AM (GMT-06:00) To: dovecot@dovecot.org Subject: exim dovecot sieve
Hello list.
I have just a generic question. Exim delivers fine to dovecot-lda. My
Hello list.
I have just a generic question. Exim delivers fine to dovecot-lda. My
problems are the logfiles. Whenever I recieve a message
Exim writes to dovecot.log as the user who recieves the mail. This
forces me to have that logfile world writeable. I don't
really like that. How do you guys
CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
LANGUAGE=en_GB:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages dovecot-sieve depends on:
ii dovecot-core 1:2.2.32-2
ii libc6 2.24-17
ii ucf
u/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf1) [0x7f4226bb92e1]
> __libc_start_main at ../csu/libc-start.c:325
> dovecot/imap(_start+0x2a) [0x556502ad92ca]
> start at ??:0
>
> > -- System Information:
> > Debian Release: 8.2
> > APT prefers oldstable-updates
> > A
ot/imap(_start+0x2a) [0x556502ad92ca]
> start at ??:0
>
>> -- System Information:
>> Debian Release: 8.2
>> APT prefers oldstable-updates
>> APT policy: (500, 'oldstable-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (
(500, 'oldstable')
> Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
>
> Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
> LANGUAGE=en_GB:en (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /
This took about 30 minutes of debugging so I figured I'd share.
The list-id block was giving me false positives, so I
changed a keep to a fileinto :create, as shown below.
Adam
# Mailman & other lists using list-id
elsif exists "list-id" {
if header :regex "list-id" "<([a-z_0-9-]+)[.@]" {
# Directory for :global include scripts (not to be confused with
sieve_global_path).
# If unset, the include fails.
sieve_global_dir = /etc/dovecot/sieve/
}
In .sieve/mailinglist.sieve I have your file.
In my main .dovecot, I have a line
include :personal
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:27:22AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 5/9/17, 11:25 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Christian Kivalo"
wrote:
Am 9. Mai 2017 17:47:13 MESZ schrieb Adam Shostack :
>Hi,
>
>Is there a clean way to match on an email address the way procmail
>^TO_ did? that
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:41:10PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
| | >^TO_ did? that was a macro which expanded to
| | >(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope
| | >|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)
| | >
| | >so you could write
|
On 5/9/17, 12:38 PM, "Adam Shostack" wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:27:22AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
| On 5/9/17, 11:25 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Christian Kivalo"
wrote:
| Am 9. Mai 2017 17:47:13 MESZ schrieb Adam Shostack
:
| >Hi,
| >
| >Is
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:27:22AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
| On 5/9/17, 11:25 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Christian Kivalo"
wrote:
| Am 9. Mai 2017 17:47:13 MESZ schrieb Adam Shostack :
| >Hi,
| >
| >Is there a clean way to match on an email address the way procmail
| >^TO
On 5/9/17, 11:25 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Christian Kivalo"
wrote:
Am 9. Mai 2017 17:47:13 MESZ schrieb Adam Shostack :
>Hi,
>
>Is there a clean way to match on an email address the way procmail
>^TO_ did? that was a macro which expanded to
>(^((Original-)?(Re
Am 9. Mai 2017 17:47:13 MESZ schrieb Adam Shostack :
>Hi,
>
>Is there a clean way to match on an email address the way procmail
>^TO_ did? that was a macro which expanded to
>(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope
>|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)
>
>so you could write
Hi,
Is there a clean way to match on an email address the way procmail
^TO_ did? that was a macro which expanded to
(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope
|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)
so you could write
* ^TO_dovecot
dovecot
and grab messages to the list. In siev
;这是一封测试邮件" , then server convert this subject to"
SUBJECT:
=?UTF-8?Q?=E8=BF=99=E6=98=AF=E4=B8=80=E5=B0=81=E6=B5=8B=E8=AF=95=E9=82=AE?=
=?UTF-8?Q?=E4=BB=B6?=
"
the essential question is when the mail go
through dovecot-sieve plugin, the sieve plugin get mail subject is &
s subject to "
SUBJECT:
=?UTF-8?Q?=E8=BF=99=E6=98=AF=E4=B8=80=E5=B0=81=E6=B5=8B=E8=AF=95=E9=82=AE?=
=?UTF-8?Q?=E4=BB=B6?=
"
the essential question is when the mail go
through dovecot-sieve plugin, the sieve plugin get mail subject is "这是一封测试邮
件" not "这是一封测试邮件"
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:59:55AM +0800, 句号先生。 | wrote:
hi,
I have a question hope to get everybody's help, thank you.
I write the dovecot sieve rules, use notify:mailto. such as mailto:mym...@dovecot.org,
this is ok.but i want to go to a url address,like
this,mailto:"h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, ?? | wrote:
I write the dovecot sieve rules, use notify:mailto. such as
mailto:mym...@dovecot.org, this is ok.but i want to go to a url
address,like this,mailto:"http://http://wiki.dovecot.org/".but i don'
hi,
I have a question hope to get everybody's help, thank you.
I write the dovecot sieve rules, use notify:mailto. such as
mailto:mym...@dovecot.org, this is ok.but i want to go to a url address,like
this,mailto:"http://http://wiki.dovecot.org/".but i don't know how to d
2 AMD64 SECURE POP3/IMAP SERVER - CORE FILES
> II DOVECOT-IMAPD 1:2.2.22-1UBUNTU2 AMD64 SECURE POP3/IMAP SERVER - IMAP
> DAEMON
> II DOVECOT-MANAGESIEVED 1:2.2.22-1UBUNTU2 AMD64 SECURE POP3/IMAP SERVER -
> MANAGE SIEVE SERVER
> II DOVECOT-SIEVE 1:2.2.22-1UBUNTU2 AMD64 SECURE PO
On Mar 19, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> mail/dovecot2-pigeonhole is what you want.
Thank you.
--
"Alas, earwax."
mail/dovecot2-pigeonhole is what you wanr.
Larry Rosenman
maintainer
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 5:25 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
> # portmaster mail/dovecot-sieve
>
> ===>>> The dependency for mail/dovecot
> seems to be handled by dovecot2-2.2.22
>
> ===>>> I
# portmaster mail/dovecot-sieve
===>>> The dependency for mail/dovecot
seems to be handled by dovecot2-2.2.22
===>>> Initial dependency check complete for mail/dovecot-sieve
===>>> Starting build for mail/dovecot-sieve <<<===
===>>> All de
Hi,
According to RFC https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5228#section-5.4
If one of the envelope-part strings is (case insensitive) "to", then
matching occurs against the TO address used in the SMTP RCPT command
that resulted in this message getting delivered to this user. Note
that only the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
what happens when an email with multiple recipient is (RCPT TO) is
delivered over lmtp? Will 'envelope "to"' contain multiple recipients in
this case?
Am 27.02.2016 um 00:53 schrieb Tom Hendrikx:
> On 26-02-16 21:44, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
On 26-02-16 21:44, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am looking for a way to check which mailbox an email is being
> delivered to in a global sieve filter.
>
> After not being able to find some kind of variable that is populated by
> dovecot automatically, I tried to use the `Delivere
Hi everyone,
I am looking for a way to check which mailbox an email is being
delivered to in a global sieve filter.
After not being able to find some kind of variable that is populated by
dovecot automatically, I tried to use the `Delivered-To` header.
I tried a check like this:
header :is "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 05.08.2015 13:06, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
I'm running dovecot in a classical vmail.vmail setup with pigeonhole and
LMTP. Permission worked well in the ini
On 05.08.2015 13:06, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
I'm running dovecot in a classical vmail.vmail setup with pigeonhole
and LMTP. Permission worked well in the initial setup but currently
(maybe after Fedora 22 update) I'm having the following permission
hole-2.2.18-2.fc22.x86_64
Relevant config parts:
mail_gid = vmail
mail_uid = vmail
plugin {
sieve = ~/.dovecot.sieve
sieve_after = /etc/dovecot/sieve_after.sieve
sieve_dir = ~/sieve
}
ls -lad /etc/dovecot/
drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jul 30 18:13 /etc/dovecot/
ls -la /etc/dovecot/*sieve*
-rw
8-2.fc22.x86_64
Relevant config parts:
mail_gid = vmail
mail_uid = vmail
plugin {
sieve = ~/.dovecot.sieve
sieve_after = /etc/dovecot/sieve_after.sieve
sieve_dir = ~/sieve
}
ls -lad /etc/dovecot/
drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jul 30 18:13 /etc/dovecot/
ls -la /etc/dovecot/*sieve*
-rwxr-x---
It only works without :addresses for me
And even when getting this on confirmation the logs:
Feb 24 09:03:52 localhost dovecot: lmtp(7895, a...@dum.li):
yeIlOfjN61TXHgAA0J78UA: sieve:
msgid=<451bb443b8ad815c205a2cce07ac31aec0727c47@vm-atmail7>: sent
vacation response to
It wasn't working.
This
Am 27.09.2014 um 15:34 schrieb Alex Crow:
> Wasnt that productive?
i would call it funny :-)
> I'm hoping the hubris will lead to some self-realisation later but I doubt it
forget it
> Also felt like he was testing us, posting regexes for us to look
> at and then when we pointed out the error
Wasnt that productive?
I'm hoping the hubris will lead to some self-realisation later but I
doubt it.
Also felt like he was testing us, posting regexes for us to look at and
then when we pointed out the errors in them suddenly declaring they were
deliberate errors for testing!
Alex
On 27/
Am 27.09.2014 um 15:16 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
>> Alex:
>> if it was
>>
>> ^From:.*\@.*\.tw$
>> it would not.
> $ is optional and it only means the end of expression, the rule works either
> with or without it in the problem I was trying to solve.
>
>> And again according to the man pa
Am 27.09.2014 um 12:49 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
>> Joseph Tam writes:
>>
>> However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
>> ...
>> /^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
>> allowed.
>>
>> Can't speak about the other issues you
>Alex:
>if it was
>
>^From:.*\@.*\.tw$
>it would not.
$ is optional and it only means the end of expression, the rule works either
with or without it in the problem I was trying to solve.
>And again according to the man page, $ is usable:
>"/^(.*)-outgoing@(.*)$/"
This is again an option ($), n
27;s not possible except the milter itself
has whitelists which are triggered
you need to realize that if a reject before queue was
triggered there is nothing happing after because there
just exists no queue at all
>> Since it is the Dovecot list I would be curious to know how to do it
&
t through on purpose will
be filtered after queue by the second filter.
> Since it is the Dovecot list I would be curious to know how to do it Dovecot
> Sieve way.
>doing *what*?
Making two filters work together (dovecot after-queue and postfix
before-queue).
> That is my P
On 27/09/14 11:49, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
Joseph Tam writes:
However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
...
/^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
allowed.
Can't speak about the other issues you are having, but is this r
most probably
> are an expert on before-queue filtering could you advise if it
> is actually possible to use both before-queue and after-queue
> filtering?
surely but how does that make sense?
> Since it is the Dovecot list I would be curious to know
> how to do it Dovecot
>Joseph Tam writes:
>
> However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
> ...
> /^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
> allowed.
>
>Can't speak about the other issues you are having, but is this regexp pattern
>what you want? Unless Po
1347
>PTR Generic: 319
That sounds interesting. Since you are German and most probably are an expert
on before-queue filtering could you advise if it is actually possible to use
both before-queue and after-queue filtering? Since it is the Dovecot list I
would be curious to know
>Alex:
>One *very* convincing argument not to send an *email* response (reject at SMTP
>is fine) is that it is very likely indeed you'll end up on an RBL yourself for
>doing this. It happened to us when we were still bouncing (probably >about
>8-10 years ago). It was the main reason we stopped.
"Klaipedaville on Google" writes:
However, my header_checks file has just 5 lines of regexp as follows:
...
/^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT Sorry, Taiwanese mail is not
allowed.
Can't speak about the other issues you are having, but is this regexp
pattern what you want? Unle
Am 26.09.2014 um 18:29 schrieb Alex Crow:
> Reindl,
> I respecfully disagree with (a) at least for the UK. It may be the case in
> Germany but I'll be damned if I'm going
> to give up on my Mailscanner - tuned over the years enough that we've never
> had a legit mail get canned.
I respecfully
Am 26.09.2014 um 18:18 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
>> it is true and besides the german legal letter below you violate a second
>> law at the same time - that is why you have to run a spamfilter *before
>> queue* and sa-milter exists - in case you reject a message
>> the sending server is r
On 26/09/14 16:44, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
Whatever's the case the backscatter you're talking about has its own
ways and methods to be fought with. There are countries for example
Germany where it is prohibited by law to discard any email messages
silently. You must reject them so tha
>it is true and besides the german legal letter below you violate a second law
>at the same time - that is why you have to run a spamfilter *before queue* and
>sa-milter exists - in case you reject a message
>the sending server is responsible for a bounce
>
>in case you accept and silently drop i
Am 26.09.2014 um 17:44 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
> There are countries for example Germany where it is prohibited by law to
> discard
> any email messages silently. You must reject them so that the senders would
> be
> aware what is going on. I was told that by one German admin. I am no
>I realise it's probably because of the use of the reject action, which
>presumably inserts the text "No spamming allowed here." into the subject of
>the bounce.
>
>However what also concerns me is that sending MDN's back to the envelope
>sender of SPAM messages is very likely to cause your ser
Am 26.09.2014 um 16:49 schrieb Alex Crow:
> On 26/09/14 15:27, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
>>> /^Subject:.**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spammers allowed here.
>>> /^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*\*/REJECT No spammers allowed.
>>> /\s**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT N
On 26/09/14 16:00, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
>So why does it state in man 5 regexp_table that such tables are *case
insensitive* by default and the /i actually toggles that? Are you
saying that man page is wrong? I'd be surprised as I don't think I've
yet come
>across an occasion where p
>Not true. Postfix regexp (and pcre) matches are case insensitive by default,
>adding the /i flag makes them case sensitive. This should be quite clear in
>the postfix docs quoted above. This documented
>default behavior may be different from other software you're familiar with.
>
>You're welc
>So why does it state in man 5 regexp_table that such tables are *case
>insensitive* by default and the /i actually toggles that? Are you saying that
>man page is wrong? I'd be surprised as I don't think I've yet come
>across an occasion where postfix man pages are incorrect!
I am not saying tha
On 9/26/2014 9:27 AM, Klaipedaville on Google wrote:
>> /^Subject:.**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spammers allowed here.
>> /^Subject:.*\*\*\*\*\*SPAM\*\*\*\*\*/REJECT No spammers allowed.
>> /\s**{5}SPAM*{5}/REJECT No spamming
>> hullababballos allowed.
>> I t
ow and as I said earlier execution stops on the
first rule matched but does not really do any harm if there is a mistake in the
rule, in this 'mistake' case the rule is simply skipped.
/^Subject:(.*)SPAM/REJECT Spam is not allowed. DISCARD.
were causing the Dovecot Sieve rejectio
ed by now and as I said earlier execution stops on the
first rule matched but does not really do any harm if there is a mistake in the
rule, in this 'mistake' case the rule is simply skipped.
> /^Subject:(.*)SPAM/REJECT Spam is not allowed. DISCARD.
> were causing the Doveco
PAM/ REJECT Spam is not allowed.
DISCARD.
were causing the Dovecot Sieve rejection bounce not to go through. The
rules blocked the spam all right but rejection was turned into discard
for some reason.
Now the question is how do I find out which regular expressions will
be in
REJECT Spam is not allowed. DISCARD.
were causing the Dovecot Sieve rejection bounce not to go through. The rules
blocked the spam all right but rejection was turned into discard for some
reason.
Now the question is how do I find out which regular expressions will be in
confli
above that
could possibly be the cause of your suggestion?
From: Alex Crow
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 14:47
To: dovecot@dovecot.org
Subject: Re: Dovecot Sieve and Postfix header_checks Issue
That would most likely be something in your header_checks that is
causing the bounce from Sieve
lows right
after my question.
I have my Postfix 2.9.6 properties set like this: header_checks =
/etc/path/to/myfile. Then I have Dovecot Sieve also configured and working fine.
Now the trouble is that these two cannot be combined together can they? Dovecot Sieve and
Postfix's header_checks?
try
to be concise:
Dovecot version is 2.1.7. Its dovecot –n is real short one and follows right
after my question.
I have my Postfix 2.9.6 properties set like this: header_checks =
/etc/path/to/myfile. Then I have Dovecot Sieve also configured and working fine.
Now the trouble is that these two
1 - 100 of 1613 matches
Mail list logo
