Neil wrote:
On Aug 25, 2008, at 7:11 AM, mouss wrote:
Neil wrote:
Is there a way I can instruct Postfix to accept incoming mail
(external and
internal), but not to deliver it/pass the mails on to their respective
destinations?
it is not clear which mail you are about. I guess it is about m
Ryan wrote:
Sorry for the slightly noob question here, but here goes.
Our company started really small, and as such, we had our mail hosted by
network solutions (yuck, I know). As we grew, I suggested and got approvak
to build us a mail server on BSD running Postfix. It works great, and I
Ulf Zimmermann wrote:
Hello, everyone.
I thought before I potential reinvent the wheel, I would ask here if
someone hasn't done this before:
I am looking at doing 3 things in postfix on a relay which is set as the
smart relay on a number of machines.
1.) Check the client host name, if in table
Jeff wrote:
I'm afraid I don't see how sending mail with an unmonitored return
address (i.e., accepted and delivered locally to /dev/null) will get
you on an RBL. I get mail of that type from big companies all the
time. They usually have something in the message that explains that
you should not
Hello, everyone.
I thought before I potential reinvent the wheel, I would ask here if
someone hasn't done this before:
I am looking at doing 3 things in postfix on a relay which is set as the
smart relay on a number of machines.
1.) Check the client host name, if in table 1, allow relay
uncondit
Sorry for the slightly noob question here, but here goes.
Our company started really small, and as such, we had our mail hosted by
network solutions (yuck, I know). As we grew, I suggested and got approvak
to build us a mail server on BSD running Postfix. It works great, and I now
want to tra
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Tony Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will
>> read those emails.
>
> That is a very very bad idea and the best way to have your s
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:50:44 +0200
"Marcel Grandemange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do entirely agree with you're statement however we have many MANY
> clients that have been with us a while and because they are all
> remote and not always IT literate, its easier implementing what
> worked and
-Original Message-
From: Marcel Grandemange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:50 PM
To: 'Jorey Bump'
Subject: RE: Postfix & pop-before-smtp
I do entirely agree with you're statement however we have many MANY clients
that have been with us a while and because th
Marcel Grandemange wrote, at 08/25/2008 05:11 PM:
Now postfix was built from ports with DBD and I think it uses version 4.
And from ive gathered I THINK pop-before-smtp uses 1
So what now!
Ive looked everywhere on how to compile pop-before-smtp to work with v4
Nothing
Anyone suggest
Ok so that is indeed the problem however to solve it is another!
File produced:
/usr/local/etc/postfix/pop-before-smtp.db: Berkeley DB 1.85 (Hash, version 2,
native byte-order)
/etc/mail/aliases.db: Berkeley DB (Hash, version 8, native byte-order)
Now postfix was built from ports with DBD and I
Marcel Grandemange wrote:
* Marcel Grandemange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Aug 25 15:31:21 thavinci postfix/smtpd[77983]: fatal: open database
/usr/local/etc/postfix/pop-before-smtp.db: Invalid argument
Some folks have reported fixing this problem by doing
something like:
# cd /usr/local/etc/post
Marcel Grandemange:
> Aug 25 15:31:21 thavinci postfix/smtpd[77983]: fatal: open database
> /usr/local/etc/postfix/pop-before-smtp.db: Invalid argument
You must use the same Berkeley DB version with Postfix
and with the program that updates the file.
Wietse
* Marcel Grandemange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why? It used to work without hitch
> What could cause this?
Different BDB libs for postfix and the pop before smtp process (which
one is it?)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wart
Why? It used to work without hitch
What could cause this?
I thought it was the BDB option that was missing , but that is compiled in...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:48 PM
To: postfix-u
* Marcel Grandemange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Aug 25 15:31:21 thavinci postfix/smtpd[77983]: fatal: open database
> /usr/local/etc/postfix/pop-before-smtp.db: Invalid argument
postfix doesn't understand the DB format the pop before smtp proces
writes.
That's it.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt ([EMAIL PROTEC
I don't know if anyone will be able to assist me with this one, but two days
ago I decided to redo our mail server.
All went well except for one components..
Pop-before-smtp, it seems no matter what I did it would simply cause postfix
hassles.
Now I know pop-before-smtp is confed cor
* Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ah, or one could use mini_sendmail instead (same restrictions apply)
>
> That would lose mail while postfix is not running.
Yes.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49
Eduardo Júnior wrote:
Hi,
I have read several how-to on the network about blocking spam using Postfix.
Most of them spoke on block messages directly into session SMTP or using
blacklists.
Someone I could pass a general documentation how do this in the Postfix?
I lost half the sea of tutorial
> Instead of adding an ever-increasing list of features to Postfix
> (or throwing in a Turing-complete scripting language) I decided
> around 2000 to allow people to plug stuff into Postfix: content
> filters, policy daemons, and Milter applications.
This is absolutely ok - I've just asked to be
Hi,
I have read several how-to on the network about blocking spam using Postfix.
Most of them spoke on block messages directly into session SMTP or using
blacklists.
Someone I could pass a general documentation how do this in the Postfix?
I lost half the sea of tutorials and official documenta
Stefan Palme:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> Thanks for all your answers. My first approach to just throw
> away all bounces caused by senseless data entered into a web
> form is obviously too naive ;-)
>
> I guess I will go the way to collect bounces by a script and
> establish an
Eduardo Júnior wrote:
Hi,
Someone could give me some documentation that talk of errors 4xx of the
Postfix?
I'm with an error between the amavis and Postfix, making you amavis
generate the following log:
(25680-09-30) Blocked TEMPFAIL
And according to some users from amavis, this is a m
Ralf Hildebrandt:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> * Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > > * Aaron D. Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I'm seeing a strange behavior where smtpd_recipient_restrictions are
> > > > being applied to
Eduardo Júnior wrote:
Hi,
Someone could give me some documentation that talk of errors 4xx of the
Postfix?
4xx is an smtp code. it means "temporary failure". the client MTA is
supposed to retry.
I'm with an error between the amavis and Postfix, making you amavis generate
the following log
Thanks for all your answers. My first approach to just throw
away all bounces caused by senseless data entered into a web
form is obviously too naive ;-)
I guess I will go the way to collect bounces by a script and
establish an smtpd_recipient_restrictions based on this list
of bouncing addresses.
Hi,
Someone could give me some documentation that talk of errors 4xx of the
Postfix?
I'm with an error between the amavis and Postfix, making you amavis generate
the following log:
(25680-09-30) Blocked TEMPFAIL
And according to some users from amavis, this is a mistake that is generated
when
On 8/25/2008 11:48 AM, Aaron Bennett wrote:
>> So what version is this?
>>
>> 2.0.16? 2.1.4? Something else?
>>
>> If either of those, you really should upgrade...
> no it's 2.3.2, those config statements are just cruft from a few upgrades.
Still old and worth upgrading...
--
Best regards,
Ch
On 8/25/2008, Aaron D. Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> html_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.1.4-documentation/html
> readme_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.0.16/README_FILES
> sample_directory = /usr/share/doc/postfix-2.0.16/samples
So what version is this?
2.0.16? 2.1.4? Something
Wietse Venema wrote:
To apply smtpd_recipient_restrictions when mail arrives via the
/usr/bin/sendmail command, this solution was posted a few days ago:
To force sendmail command-line submissions through the SMTP server,
use this:
Thank you.
Aaron Bennett wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
sendmail != smtpd
thus smtpd_recipient_restrictions don't apply
understood. Nonetheless, do you know of a way to prevent users from
using sendmail to send to a particular recipient, besides an ugly hack
like aliasing the recipient to /dev/nu
Stefan Palme wrote:
I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will
read those emails.
That is a very very bad idea and the best way to have your server added to
many RBLs.
You want to look at and process all
Stefan Palme wrote:
Hmmm. Maybe I did not understand you, or you me... ;-)
I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will
read those emails.
The Reply-To-address will become a really existing address which i
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
sendmail != smtpd
thus smtpd_recipient_restrictions don't apply
understood. Nonetheless, do you know of a way to prevent users from
using sendmail to send to a particular recipient, besides an ugly hack
like aliasing the recipient to /dev/null or something?
DULMANDAKH Sukhbaatar schrieb:
I had success on setting up dkim-milter with postfix. Now I want to
try SPF thing. But should I use SPF through milter or policy server?
Which one is best? Cons and pros?
i just upgraded
to
http://www.openspf.org/blobs/postfix-policyd-spf-perl-2.007.tar.gz
based
> On this special server the one and only client is the web application,
> where anonymous users can use a web form to ask for an account. They
> have to fill in their email address. The web application sends a
> mail to this address with a dynamically generated link the user has
> to follow to rea
* Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ralf Hildebrandt:
> > * Aaron D. Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> >
> > > I'm seeing a strange behavior where smtpd_recipient_restrictions are
> > > being applied to mail received over the network but not to mail sent
> > > from local unix mail
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> * Aaron D. Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi,
> >
>
> > I'm seeing a strange behavior where smtpd_recipient_restrictions are
> > being applied to mail received over the network but not to mail sent
> > from local unix mail ( or from squirrelmail which is using
> > /usr/bin/s
I had success on setting up dkim-milter with postfix. Now I want to
try SPF thing. But should I use SPF through milter or policy server?
Which one is best? Cons and pros?
--
Regards
Dulmandakh
> > I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will
> > read those emails.
>
> That is a very very bad idea and the best way to have your server added to
> many RBLs.
>
> You want to look at and process al
* Aaron D. Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing a strange behavior where smtpd_recipient_restrictions are
> being applied to mail received over the network but not to mail sent
> from local unix mail ( or from squirrelmail which is using
> /usr/bin/sendmail ).
sendmail != smtpd
thus
> I want the From address to be set to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> A mail sent to this address will cause no error, but nobody will
> read those emails.
That is a very very bad idea and the best way to have your server added to
many RBLs.
You want to look at and process all bounce messages
Hi,
> > It happens very very often that users enter an invalid email
> > address or just senseless texts. So the webmaster-address
> > receives all the backscatter from undeliverable mail.
>
> This is not backscatter. this is a legitimate bounce.
Ok, sorry, I've used the wrong term - I'm talking
Hi,
I'm seeing a strange behavior where smtpd_recipient_restrictions are being
applied to mail received over the network but not to mail sent from local unix
mail ( or from squirrelmail which is using /usr/bin/sendmail ).
The intention is to prevent anyone from emailing a specific address. Wha
Neil wrote:
Is there a way I can instruct Postfix to accept incoming mail (external and
internal), but not to deliver it/pass the mails on to their respective
destinations?
it is not clear which mail you are about. I guess it is about mail
received via smtp. if so, use HOLD in a restriction:
Stefan Palme wrote:
Hello,
a little bit off topic - but maybe someone can comment this...
We are running a website where users can register themself, use
features like "send this page to a friend" etc. Those features
make the web application send an email to a user. The from
addresses (envelope
Hello,
a little bit off topic - but maybe someone can comment this...
We are running a website where users can register themself, use
features like "send this page to a friend" etc. Those features
make the web application send an email to a user. The from
addresses (envelope FROM and header From:
Stefan Palme:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a question not exactly postfix related: When a mail server
> is about to send a bounce message to the original sender of an
> undeliverable mail - which address will this bounce be sent to?
According to the Internet mail standards, it is sent to the
envelope se
put /^Received:/HOLD
In your header_checks
But make sure you will do something to this mail later
Thanks
Ram
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 01:27 -0700, Neil wrote:
> Is there a way I can instruct Postfix to accept incoming mail
> (external and internal), but not
Neil wrote:
Is there a way I can instruct Postfix to accept incoming mail (external
and internal), but not to deliver it/pass the mails on to their
respective destinations?
Yes, see http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#defer_transports and
also http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.us
Is there a way I can instruct Postfix to accept incoming mail (external and
internal), but not to deliver it/pass the mails on to their respective
destinations?
-N.
Erwan David wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:54:40AM CEST, Magnus Bäck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Mon, August 25, 2008 8:32 am, Stefan Palme said:
this is a question not exactly postfix related: When a mail server
is about to send a bounce message to the original sender of an
undeliverable
Stefan Palme wrote:
this is a question not exactly postfix related: When a mail server
is about to send a bounce message to the original sender of an
undeliverable mail - which address will this bounce be sent to?
The Return-Path? The address from the "From" header?
Or even to the "Reply-To" add
DULMANDAKH Sukhbaatar wrote:
Hello all.
I've set up some spam protection stuffs in my email server (postfix).
Postfix is running correctly, amavisd-new is also working with clamav.
Bu I have doubt with spamassassin. To check my spam protection I've
forwarded my SPAM messages from gmail to a new
> > this is a question not exactly postfix related: When a mail server
> > is about to send a bounce message to the original sender of an
> > undeliverable mail - which address will this bounce be sent to?
> >
> > The Return-Path? The address from the "From" header?
> > Or even to the "Reply-To" a
Hello all.
I've set up some spam protection stuffs in my email server (postfix).
Postfix is running correctly, amavisd-new is also working with clamav.
Bu I have doubt with spamassassin. To check my spam protection I've
forwarded my SPAM messages from gmail to a new server, but it gets in
to mailb
56 matches
Mail list logo
