Empty 'local_recipient_maps =' and security

Hi, I have set up postfix with a mail_transport to Zarafa. To fix an ' Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table' error I have to put an empty 'local_recipient_maps =' in postfix's main.cf. I do wonder about the security implications of setting this option. If I understan

Re: lmtp_generic_maps for delivery to dovecot

> Postfix doesn't have a pipe_generic_maps feature, so the only > way you can fix this in postfix is by delivering to another > postfix instance, and let that instance deliver to dovecot. > > But dovecot is pretty flexible; maybe there's some way to > change the delivery destination on that en

Re: content_filter post processing question

Gary Smith: > > > > When it comes to envelope, specifically "mail from:" and "rcpt > > > to:", my understanding is that these will never have comments in > > > them and be just plain email addresses j...@example.com, > > > bou...@jack@bou...@example.com, etc, but never "jack" > > > (or (i.e. the

RE: content_filter post processing question

> > When it comes to envelope, specifically "mail from:" and "rcpt > > to:", my understanding is that these will never have comments in > > them and be just plain email addresses j...@example.com, > > bou...@jack@bou...@example.com, etc, but never "jack" > > (or (i.e. the <> ). In the sample py

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

LinkedIn sino zhou requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn: -- James, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - sino Accept invitation from sino zhou http://www.linkedin.com/e/qB3B5040SVrp2HIWv-3fZ6Ke54Thhyz_sjk8vi

Re: content_filter post processing question

Gary Smith: > > > > Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to avoid writing garbage > > into the pipe between Postfix and the filter, used to collect filter > > error messages. > > > > With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP) > > filter approach not pipe(8) bas

RE: content_filter post processing question

> > Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to avoid writing garbage > into the pipe between Postfix and the filter, used to collect filter > error messages. > > With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP) > filter approach not pipe(8) based filters. Looking aroun

Re: owner-list sometimes not used

Wietse Venema: > > Sorry, don't do that. Postfix will NOT store mailing list members > > in the "new" queue file if that member is an alias. > > > > I haven't had time to fix local delivery agent logic since 1998, > > and it is unlikely to be fixed now without unexpectedly breaking > > a ton of o

Re: owner-list sometimes not used

Wietse Venema: > Rik Theys: > > Now, when I put the following in the aliases file: > > > > member1: user1 > > member2: user2 > > member3: user3 > > testlist: :include:/etc/postfix/testlist > > owner-testlist: user1 > > > > and in /etc/postfix/testlist: > > > > member1 > > member2 > > me

Re: Postfix, SASL sending mail through Postfix.

Thanks for having fun with that. I have to pick up my daughter and hope to get back tomorrow morning. I will look at this program and hopefully have something for you in the morning. I know little about this stuff but am throwing myself into it because I have been disabled for the last yea

RE: content_filter post processing question

> Also, if the process does not close/redirect stdout and stderr, > Postfix will still wait for program output, and you won't gain any > speedup from forking off into the background. > > > With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP) > > filter approach not pipe(8) base

Re: content_filter post processing question

Victor Duchovni: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:40:05AM -0700, Gary Smith wrote: > > > My question is will this fork process cause any problems with postfix > > itself? I just don't know what the impact of a fork in the content_filter > > will be. > > Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to

Re: postfix and dovecot

On 5/11/2010 1:48 PM, Phil Howard wrote: I've been exploring, both on my mail-server-to-be, and on the Dovecot mailing list, just why it is that the Dovecot deliver program is leaving the domain string empty when formulating the mail location path. The answer I'm getting now on that list is that

postfix and dovecot

I've been exploring, both on my mail-server-to-be, and on the Dovecot mailing list, just why it is that the Dovecot deliver program is leaving the domain string empty when formulating the mail location path. The answer I'm getting now on that list is that it is a Postfix problem and that I should

RE: content_filter post processing question

> Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to avoid writing garbage > into the pipe between Postfix and the filter, used to collect filter > error messages. > > With this level of complexity, you really should use the advanced (SMTP) > filter approach not pipe(8) based filters. > Victor, To

Re: content_filter post processing question

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:40:05AM -0700, Gary Smith wrote: > My question is will this fork process cause any problems with postfix > itself? I just don't know what the impact of a fork in the content_filter > will be. Just make sure to close stdout and stderr, to avoid writing garbage into the

RE: content_filter post processing question

> If the filter reports success to Postfix before giving the FILTERED > message to the Postfix queue, then Postfix will remove the UNFILTERED > message from the queue too early, and you will lose mail when (not > if) the filter has a problem. > The filter re-injects the message back into the queu

Re: content_filter post processing question

Gary Smith: > Given the message below, if I fork a process inside a content > filter (say in python or perl), so I can return the message back > to postfix faster (and end the content pipe fast with a success > exist code), will this have any impact on postfix? If the filter reports success to Pos

Re: I've told you twice now in private...

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Appliantologist wrote: > Alright, alright! I'm sorry, and I won't do it again. > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, BABEDH-DHRA wrote: >> I have sent you 1, one message by accident.  I have not sent anything else >> to you.  I will accept your apology in public.

Re: check relay_recipients_maps before greylisting ?

Frank Bonnet: > Hello > > I would like to check the relay_recipients_maps BEFORE the greylisting > is it possible ? For example: /etc/postfix/main.cf: smtpd_recipient_restrictions = ... reject_unlisted_recipient check_policy_service ... http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_

Re: check relay_recipients_maps before greylisting ?

On 5/11/2010 8:04 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote: > Hello > > I would like to check the relay_recipients_maps BEFORE the greylisting > is it possible ? > > Thank you > I believe you want to place reject_unlisted_recipient before your greylist check. See http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_reject_

check relay_recipients_maps before greylisting ?

Hello I would like to check the relay_recipients_maps BEFORE the greylisting is it possible ? Thank you

Re: Postfix, Amavisd and DKIM

On 5/10/2010 10:24 PM, The Doctor wrote: Just reading from amavisd docs on the how set up DKIM and I was wondering if this section of their documentation is correct: Configuring multiple mail paths in Postfix Here is one way of configuring Postfix for providing two paths through a content filt

RE: content_filter post processing question

Given the message below, if I fork a process inside a content filter (say in python or perl), so I can return the message back to postfix faster (and end the content pipe fast with a success exist code), will this have any impact on postfix? > We have a custom content filter in place. During t

Re: owner-list sometimes not used

Rik Theys: > Now, when I put the following in the aliases file: > > member1: user1 > member2: user2 > member3: user3 > testlist: :include:/etc/postfix/testlist > owner-testlist: user1 > > and in /etc/postfix/testlist: > > member1 > member2 > member3 > > I touch /var/spool/mail/user

Re: I've told you twice now in private...

Alright, alright! I'm sorry, and I won't do it again. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, BABEDH-DHRA wrote: > I have sent you 1, one message by accident.  I have not sent anything else > to you.  I will accept your apology in public. > >

I've told you twice now in private...

I have sent you 1, one message by accident. I have not sent anything else to you. I will accept your apology in public.

Re: Postfix ignoring "", won't do fingerprint checking

On 5/10/2010 11:14 PM, Dave O'Larte wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Noel Jones wrote: On 5/10/2010 12:52 PM, Dave O'Larte wrote: Regarding using the right main.cf: I've only installed a single Postfix instance, and changes I make to main.cf do affect P

owner-list sometimes not used

Hi, Consider the following entries in an aliases file: testlist: :include:/etc/postfix/testlist owner-testlist: user1 content of /etc/postfix/testlist: user1 user2 user3 When we simulate a locked mailbox by creating /var/spool/mail/user2.lock and send a mail to the testlist, the follow

Re: lmtp_generic_maps for delivery to dovecot

On 5/11/2010 12:34 AM, ram wrote: On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 10:15 -0500, Noel Jones wrote: On 5/10/2010 8:33 AM, ram wrote: Can I use somthing like lmtp_generic_maps for delivery to dovecot Your question is incomplete. What are you trying to accomplish? How does postfix deliver to dovecot?

Re: lpr notifications thru postfix

Jamal Mubarak: > Well, Mac OS has BSM (Basic Security Module) audit. > > http://www.trustedbsd.org/openbsm.html > http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/DOCUMENTATION/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man2/auditon.2.html > > Should I mess with auditon? Last time I looked, BSM was not part of Postfix, s

Re: Drop mail when X-Something header contains "value" AND destination domain == "somedomain.com"

mouss escribió: > Roman Medina-Heigl Hernandez a écrit : >> The (real) problem is the following: my Amavis/Spamasssin setup analyzes >> mail and adds X-Spam-* headers accordingly but it does NOT block/drop any >> mail. Filtering is done at the MDA level via sieve, which analyzes headers >> and deci

Delivery to external domains

Hi, I have setup a internal postfix server that relays mail from our external DMZ server to internal mail hosts, it should accept mail the example.com but allow relaying from selected lan hosts to external domains for instance o2.co.uk etc, whenever I attempt to relay through the postfix serv