Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happened to the mail that met the "FILTER DUNNO" criteria of the
> incorrect config?
Your logs will tell you. You could also see if it's lurking in the
mailq.
--
Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry "10.1.2.3"
requires transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
Sorry, it was shown in the inline above:
133.40.0.0/16 FILTER DUNNO
DUNNO is not a
Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry "10.1.2.3"
> requires transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
>>> Sorry, it was shown in the inline above:
>>>
>>> 133.40.0.0/16 FILTER DUNNO
>>
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry "10.1.2.3"
requires transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
Sorry, it was shown in
Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sahil Tandon wrote:
>> Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry "10.1.2.3"
>>> requires transport:destination
>>
>> Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
>>
> Sorry, it was shown in t
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry "10.1.2.3" requires
transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
Sorry, it was shown in the inline above:
133.40.0.0/16 FILTER DUNNO
0.0.0.0/0
Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> access table cidr:/etc/postfix/per_client_filter entry "10.1.2.3" requires
> transport:destination
Typo in your per_client_filter CIDR? Show us.
--
Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Noel Jones wrote:
Camron W. Fox wrote:
Stefan Palme wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 09:39 -1000, Camron W. Fox wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
Camron W. Fox wrote:
Alle,
We would like to filter all internal email so that it bypasses
SpamAssassin. We have set up per_client_filters using:
smtpd_
John O'Reilly:
> hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns mdns4
With disable_dns_lookup=yes, Postfix uses the nsswitch mechanisms
to look up host address information. What does mdns4_minimal do?
Wietse
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 03:10:27PM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> > Is there more than one? I'm making changes to the one in
> > /etc/post/main.cf, and they show up when I do a 'postconf'.
> >
>
> If in a chroot, a process looks in /var/spool/postfix/etc for
> configuration. (and
John O'Reilly wrote:
> First of all, thanks. I need the help.
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Victor Duchovni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:20:48PM -0400, John O'Reilly wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am running in a chroot setup.
>>>
>> Why???
>>
>
> app
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:40:53PM -0400, John O'Reilly wrote:
> >> here is postconf -n output:
> >
> > Here too domains are obfuscated, so I can't help you further.
> >
> >> content_filter = smtp-amavis:[127.0.0.1]:10024
> >
> > Your logs don't show any use of amavis, this sure looks like the wro
First of all, thanks. I need the help.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Victor Duchovni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:20:48PM -0400, John O'Reilly wrote:
>
>> I am running in a chroot setup.
>
> Why???
apparently, that's the default on Ubuntu with apt-get install.
>
>>
Alan Boyd wrote:
Gah.
I was hoping there'd be some means to do a simple pipe to an external
application which provided the result. :(
I suppose the SMTPD_POLICY_README is the way to go, then. Though it's a
little more heavyweight than I anticipated.
Still, it would allow me to easily ignore
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:20:48PM -0400, John O'Reilly wrote:
> I am running in a chroot setup.
Why???
> Sep 26 11:29:43 dilton postfix/qmgr[16091]: 0BDB83E04F8:
> from=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, size=327, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> Sep 26 11:29:43 dilton postfix/smtp[16234]: 0BDB83E04F8:
> to=<[EMAIL
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Brian Evans - Postfix List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John O'Reilly wrote:
>> I am trying to set up postfix on a private network. The mailserver is
>> not registered with any dns server. The problem is that I can't get
>> postfix to stop trying to look up its o
>John O'Reilly:
>
>> I am trying to set up postfix on a private network. The mailserver is
>> not registered with any dns server. The problem is that I can't get
>> postfix to stop trying to look up its own domain with local mail and
>> just use the hosts file. Or if I could get it to stop appen
>The client concurrency must not exceed the service concurrency, and
>virus scanning is CPU intensive, and in my experience this is too much.
>
>Of course in a multi-filter chain, if any of the filters are high
>latency, the combined filter latency can throttle the CPU demand
>of any CPU intensive
John O'Reilly wrote:
> I am trying to set up postfix on a private network. The mailserver is
> not registered with any dns server. The problem is that I can't get
> postfix to stop trying to look up its own domain with local mail and
> just use the hosts file. Or if I could get it to stop append
John O'Reilly:
> I am trying to set up postfix on a private network. The mailserver is
> not registered with any dns server. The problem is that I can't get
> postfix to stop trying to look up its own domain with local mail and
> just use the hosts file. Or if I could get it to stop appending
>
I am trying to set up postfix on a private network. The mailserver is
not registered with any dns server. The problem is that I can't get
postfix to stop trying to look up its own domain with local mail and
just use the hosts file. Or if I could get it to stop appending
anything to the username
Juan Miscaro wrote:
2008/9/25 Brian Evans - Postfix List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
The Problem the OP appears to fall into is that mail coming from outside
the mynetworks is being trapped to do a "local" DNS MX/A record.
It is probably pointing mail to the "example.com" as 127.0.0.1 (not
uncom
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 06:30:03PM +0300, Marco TCHI HONG wrote:
> >These concurrency numbers are very high. Running A/V scanning
> >at concurrency substantially higher than ~20 (on Dual CPU boxes) is
> >generally counter-productive.
>
> I have two Xeon 5160 Dual-Core 3,0 GHz on my box and 4Gb RA
Peter L. Berghold wrote:
> Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
>
> > Without a current 'postconf -n', no one here can tell you.
>
[...]
> relay_domains = bayshoredogclub.org,
> berghold.net,agilitystewards.org,localhost
No relay_recipient_maps could make you an (out|back)scatter source.
> smtpd_helo
>These concurrency numbers are very high. Running A/V scanning
>at concurrency substantially higher than ~20 (on Dual CPU boxes) is
>generally counter-productive.
I have two Xeon 5160 Dual-Core 3,0 GHz on my box and 4Gb RAM.
About 500k mail go through this MX (50Gb traffic).
>What is the destinat
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:01AM -0400, Peter L. Berghold wrote:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_sender_access
> hash:/etc/postfix/access,permit_mynetworks,
> permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination,
> reject_unauth_pipelining,reject_non_fqdn_sender,
> reject_non_f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote:
> Without a current 'postconf -n', no one here can tell you.
>
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/p
Peter L. Berghold:
> Here is what I'm seeing in my logs:
>
> Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: connect from
> mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]
> Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]: 450 4.7.1
> : Helo c
Peter L. Berghold wrote:
>
> Here is what I'm seeing in my logs:
>
> Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: connect from
> mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]
> Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]: 450 4.7.1
> :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here is what I'm seeing in my logs:
Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: connect from
mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]
Sep 26 11:06:53 berghold postfix/smtpd[826]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail.skywaysoftware.com[209.34.233.105]: 450
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 05:44:28PM +0300, Marco TCHI HONG wrote:
> >KAV versions I've seen are not fully transparent proxies, they respond
> >with banner 220 and EHLO 250 before making a downstream connection. The
> >connection to the downstream server may happen as late as "." (after
> >the conte
>KAV versions I've seen are not fully transparent proxies, they respond
>with banner 220 and EHLO 250 before making a downstream connection. The
>connection to the downstream server may happen as late as "." (after
>the content is scanned). It is certainly important to make sure that
>the configur
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 08:49:05AM -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
>
> if bounce, then bcc or forward
>
> ... so we can analyze the bounces.
>
> bounce_notice_recipient would be perfect, but it only includes the headers,
> not the DATA.
There is no mechanism for delivering complete extra copies of
if bounce, then bcc or forward
... so we can analyze the bounces.
bounce_notice_recipient would be perfect, but it only includes the headers, not
the DATA.
thanks
Len
__
IMGate OpenSource Mail Firewall www.IMGate.net
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 09:19:50AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse:
> > >Another possibility is that the
> > >Postfix SMTP server behind the content filter has problems when it
> > >tries to resolve the 127.0.0.1 client IP address to a hostname.
>
> Marco TCHI HONG:
> > How would be resolvin
Wietse:
> >Another possibility is that the
> >Postfix SMTP server behind the content filter has problems when it
> >tries to resolve the 127.0.0.1 client IP address to a hostname.
Marco TCHI HONG:
> How would be resolving a problem 127.0.0.1 when in my /etc/hosts.conf I
> have : order hosts,bind a
>One possible explanation is that the filter queries a
>broken DNS (blocklist) server
When the problem occured, I already thought about the broken DNSBL query.
The content filter isn't doing any DNSBL check and the problem persists.
>Another possibility is that the
>Postfix SMTP server behind the
Marc Silver:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have two (probably) very simple questions for you Postfix gurus.
>
> Firstly, I was wondering if there's a Postfix equivalent of the 'exim -bt
> ' command in Exim?
Postfix mail delivery daemons can report the result of one attempt
to deliver mail (without actually
Gah.
I was hoping there'd be some means to do a simple pipe to an external
application which provided the result. :(
I suppose the SMTPD_POLICY_README is the way to go, then. Though it's
a little more heavyweight than I anticipated.
Still, it would allow me to easily ignore other domains
C
Marc Silver wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have two (probably) very simple questions for you Postfix gurus.
>
> Firstly, I was wondering if there's a Postfix equivalent of the 'exim
> -bt ' command in Exim? This command shows the specific route
> that the MTA would use to deliver the message for the give
Hi guys,
I have two (probably) very simple questions for you Postfix gurus.
Firstly, I was wondering if there's a Postfix equivalent of the 'exim -bt
' command in Exim? This command shows the specific route that
the MTA would use to deliver the message for the given recipient. An
example
Marco TCHI HONG:
> Our problem is that mail stay a long time in the active queue before the
> content filter, but when it's sent to the server where mailboxes are
> stored there's no problem:
>
> Sep 26 10:11:57 mx postfix/smtp[1387]: 1906C718411:
> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1
Alan Boyd:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to find a way to reject email which is sent to an unknown
> user (determined by an external program) at a virtual domain, such
> that the email doesn't even enter the mail queue.
Wietse Venema:
> For Postfix to reject invalid recipients at the SMTP port, this
> i
Ok, so the problem is definitely a content filter problem ?
This has nothing to do with our Postfix configuration if I understand.
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Wietse Venema
Envoyé : vendredi 26 septembre 2008 15:00
À : Marco TCHI HONG
Hi,
Thanks for the response. Two questions:
1) Which variable in main.cf should this lookup table be referenced in?
2) I've read the man page, but it isn't clear in whether I can
reference a database or table which is produced as the output of a
program? For example, whether postfix can read
On 9/26/2008 7:56 AM, PauAmma wrote:
>>> Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
>>> warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
>>> for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or 5000 messages
>>> that your disk is almost full.
>> If 50
Marco TCHI HONG:
> Our problem is that mail stay a long time in the active queue before the
> content filter, but when it's sent to the server where mailboxes are
> stored there's no problem:
>
> Sep 26 10:11:57 mx postfix/smtp[1387]: 1906C718411:
> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 9/26/2008, Michael Monnerie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or 50
On 9/26/2008, Michael Monnerie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Could/Should the behaviour of postfix be changed to just send that
> warning every 15 or 30 minutes, not per message? That would be better
> for everybody I think, as it doesn't help to get 50 or 5000 messages
> that your disk is almost
On Freitag, 26. September 2008 Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix sends you this transcript because of the "Insufficient system
> storage" problem, not because the client was using pipelining.
Ah OK. But as it is a temporary message the sender gets, it retries very
quick and often. And each time a me
2008/9/25 Brian Evans - Postfix List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> mouss wrote:
>> Henrik K wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 03:30:18PM +0200, mouss wrote:
> However, since there will be many more domains hosted on this server
> is there not a better way?
yes, there is: remove your check_se
On 9/26/2008, Henrik K ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Ok that's true. But it still doesn't make it right to have a non-working
> envelope sender.
What is 'right' and what is reality are often very different things.
--
Best regards,
Charles
Alan Boyd:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to find a way to reject email which is sent to an unknown
> user (determined by an external program) at a virtual domain, such
> that the email doesn't even enter the mail queue.
>
> Currently, my set up is as follows:
> I use a virtual mapping to send email
Michael Monnerie:
> Out: 250 8BITMIME
> In: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=13344 BODY=8BITMIME
> Out: 452 Insufficient system storage
Postfix sends you this transcript because of the "Insufficient system storage"
problem, not because the client was using pipelining.
Wietse
On Freitag, 26. September 2008 mouss wrote:
> > Dear list, this message was generated by the receiver postfix
> > (2.2.1), where the sender postfix was 2.3.2 from openSUSE 10.2. The
> > receiver's disk was temporarily full, which it announced correctly,
> > but the sender ignored it and continued t
Hello,
I'm trying to find a way to reject email which is sent to an unknown
user (determined by an external program) at a virtual domain, such
that the email doesn't even enter the mail queue.
Currently, my set up is as follows:
I use a virtual mapping to send email in the format
[EMAIL P
Hello,
I am using Postfix 2.3.3 and Kaspersky Antispam/Antivirus on our MX.
Mailboxes are hosted on another server.
The MX is relaying 250 domains or so, and it doesn't have resources
issues.
Our problem is that mail stay a long time in the active queue before the
content filter, but when it's sen
Noel Jones wrote:
Gerardo Herzig wrote:
Hi all. Im looking a way to check outgoing mail for viruses.
Im reading http://www.postfix.org/SMTPD_PROXY_README.html, and looks
like what im looking for. Im at the right path?
I hope so.
This is for a 2000 email accounts server, 20 listing mails (some
Michael Monnerie wrote:
Dear list, this message was generated by the receiver postfix (2.2.1),
where the sender postfix was 2.3.2 from openSUSE 10.2. The receiver's
disk was temporarily full, which it announced correctly, but the sender
ignored it and continued to try to send. Is this normal be
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 07:07:41PM +0200, mouss wrote:
>
> and given that the sender may be forged, you'll be hitting an innocent dns
> server. not a serious issue, but if the benefit is 0 hit, ...
I do have hits every day. Even if it's in the 0.01% region..
You are right, the point of dns querie
60 matches
Mail list logo
