Grobe, Tony put forth on 9/24/2010 12:36 PM:
>> | j...@main:~/bin> grep "222.255.237.6" /opt/rsync/dnswl/postfix-dnswl-
>> permit
>> | 222.255.237.6/32permit_auth_destination
>>
>> -- Matthias
>
> That's fine, and solves the problem of using unmodified files from dnswl, but
> it complica
Hi All,
This list has been super helpful in the past, so I am hoping that
you'll have an idea for me.
Synopsis: does anybody know a way I can insert logging data into a
mysql table when aliases are looked up in a virtual_alias_maps
mysql lookup table?
I recently set up a my
On 09/24/2010 03:13 PM, Jerry wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:53:02 -0500
cajun articulated:
I'm migrating a working Ver 2.1.5 server to Ver 2.5.5 (on a new box).
Two questions:
1) I assume it would not be a good thing just to copy main.cf&
master.cf along with the associated .db files to the
On 09/24/2010 03:35 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-09-24 3:51 PM, cajun wrote:
On 09/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
It's usually safe to copy them and let postfix upgrade them
Thanks Ralf! There's at least 10,000 things I don't know about Postfix.
This was certainly one of the
"Michael Orlitzky" wrote:
>On 09/24/10 10:41, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Sahil Tandon put forth on 9/24/2010 7:12 AM:
>>> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 05:31:15 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>>
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 9/23/2010 8:37 PM:
> # sutton-partners.com
> /^64\.191\.79\.2
I have no idea how gmail allowed this post, since I labelled you as a
spammer (you're an outright troll, but sadly gmail has no function for
trolls, only spammers) after your first post to me.
But you are the one full of it, anyone is free to read the archives of
dovecot to see it affects pop3 DUE
On 2010-09-24 3:51 PM, cajun wrote:
> On 09/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>> It's usually safe to copy them and let postfix upgrade them
> Thanks Ralf! There's at least 10,000 things I don't know about Postfix.
> This was certainly one of them.
Ralf didn't exactly say, so just wanted
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:53:02 -0500
cajun articulated:
>
> I'm migrating a working Ver 2.1.5 server to Ver 2.5.5 (on a new box).
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) I assume it would not be a good thing just to copy main.cf &
> master.cf along with the associated .db files to the new server as I
> can s
On 09/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* cajun:
I'm migrating a working Ver 2.1.5 server to Ver 2.5.5 (on a new box).
Two questions:
1) I assume it would not be a good thing just to copy main.cf&
master.cf along with the associated .db files to the new server as I
can see lots has
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Leisi
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:07 PM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with postfix-dnswl-permit (Was Re: REJECT mails to
> a speci
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
postfix-dnswl-permit
222.255.237.6/32 permit_auth_destination low vinabook.com DNSWLId 17147
> AFAIK, ACCEPT/PERMIT actions don't allow optional text. I believe
> eliminating the verbose data would be preferable, yes.
OK, fixed:
Toni Mueller:
> I've already tried to use transport_map entries to specify "local:"
> delivery for those special emails, which would give me a home to work
> in, plus (I think) reduced privileges, but Postfix still insisted on
> delivering the email by "virtual:", ie, to Dovecot. Restarting Postfix
Greetings,
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Stan Hoeppner
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:08 AM
>
> Matthias Leisi put forth on 9/24/2010 9:12 AM:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:15 AM
On 09/24/2010 10:15 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
So far, I see the following options:
* Add the affected domains to mydestination and switch them using the
alias mechanism. Very unwieldy, plus there is no easy way to drop
privileges while delivering email.
* Use a sieve script to copy su
On 09/24/2010 04:56 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>>> Even then, a 1000 recipient list should be spread across two local(8)
>>> processes, each delivering transactions of 50 recipients side by side.
>>> I don't see that happen, so I suspect the measurement is inconclusive.
>>
Matthias Leisi put forth on 9/24/2010 9:12 AM:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:15 AM, mouss wrote:
>
>>> postfix-dnswl-header
>>> 222.255.237.6/32 PREPEND X-REPLACEME: low vinabook.com DNSWLId 17147
>>>
>>> postfix-dnswl-permit
>>> 222.255.237.6/32 permit_auth_destination low vinabook
Stan Hoeppner:
> Noel Jones put forth on 9/24/2010 7:43 AM:
> > Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> /\[([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3})\]/ all_rbls
> >>
> >> It only matches on a dotted quad enclosed in []. It won't match on the
> >> rdns name, or lack thereof (unknown).
> >
> > No
On 09/24/10 10:41, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Sahil Tandon put forth on 9/24/2010 7:12 AM:
>> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 05:31:15 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Orlitzky put forth on 9/23/2010 8:37 PM:
>>>
# sutton-partners.com
/^64\.191\.79\.245$/public_rbls
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> > Even then, a 1000 recipient list should be spread across two local(8)
> > processes, each delivering transactions of 50 recipients side by side.
> > I don't see that happen, so I suspect the measurement is inconclusive.
>
> Unfortunately it doesn't. :-(
Actually, mul
Noel Jones put forth on 9/24/2010 7:43 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> /\[([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3})\]/ all_rbls
>>
>> It only matches on a dotted quad enclosed in []. It won't match on the
>> rdns name, or lack thereof (unknown).
>
> No, the table is searched twice;
Sahil Tandon put forth on 9/24/2010 7:12 AM:
> On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 05:31:15 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Michael Orlitzky put forth on 9/23/2010 8:37 PM:
>>
>>> # sutton-partners.com
>>> /^64\.191\.79\.245$/public_rbls
>>>
>>> # mabel.ca
>>> /^70\.38\.108\.42$/
Hi all,
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:15 AM, mouss wrote:
>> postfix-dnswl-header
>> 222.255.237.6/32 PREPEND X-REPLACEME: low vinabook.com DNSWLId 17147
>>
>> postfix-dnswl-permit
>> 222.255.237.6/32 permit_auth_destination low vinabook.com DNSWLId 17147
> no, it was that way since a long time.
On 09/24/2010 03:44 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
I did a test run with the following aliases:
testlist: me
On 9/24/2010 8:46 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
is it possible to use LDAP lookup in the relay_recipients_maps
statement ?
If yes ant infos links welcome !
Thanks
Yes, you can use LDAP for relay_recipient_maps. The result
must be the same as with simple indexed files.
http://www.postfix.o
Hello
is it possible to use LDAP lookup in the relay_recipients_maps
statement ?
If yes ant infos links welcome !
Thanks
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >>> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
> >>
> >> I did a test run with the following aliases:
> >>
> >> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
> >> owner-testlist: ro
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Fredrik S?derblom:
> > Why does postfix (2.6.1, 2.7.0) force NOTIFY=NEVER when i change
> > a RCPT TO: from a milter?
> I haven't seen any no documentation on what the recipient attributes
> of addrcpt should be. In the absence of that, Postfix maintai
On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>>> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>>
>> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>>
>> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
>> owner-testlist: root
>> member1: leo
>> member2: tes
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> With one local(8) process, requeuing wouldn't make any difference, the
> been_here table would fill just as much as without an owner- alias.
That is incorrect.
With _destination_recipient_limit=1, there will be one recipient
per local(8) transaction. All local(8) state
On Sep 24, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 9/24/2010 2:37 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 09/24/10 01:10, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:37:40 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>>
check_client_access pcre://generic_rbl_clients.pcre,
The content of gener
On 09/24/2010 03:07 PM, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
> On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>>>
>>> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>>>
>>> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
>>>
On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>>> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>>
>> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>>
>> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
>> owner-testlist: root
>> member1: leo
>> member2: tes
On 9/24/2010 2:37 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/24/10 01:10, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:37:40 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
check_client_access pcre://generic_rbl_clients.pcre,
The content of generic_rbl_clients.pcre:
# sutton-partners.com
/^64\.191\.79\.245$/
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> > Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>
> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>
> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
> owner-testlist: root
> member1: leo
> member2: testleo
> # leo2 is a real user
>
> It requeues th
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:26:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >
> > > > More sensibly, it seems safe to skip the RESET_OWNER_ATTR() operation.
> > > > That code is a remnant of a very early attempt to attribute bounces
> > > > very ac
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 05:31:15 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky put forth on 9/23/2010 8:37 PM:
>
> > # sutton-partners.com
> > /^64\.191\.79\.245$/public_rbls
> >
> > # mabel.ca
> > /^70\.38\.108\.42$/ public_rbls
> >
> > # dsnews.com
> > /^209
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 03:37:22 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> # sutton-partners.com
> >> /^64\.191\.79\.245$/public_rbls
> >>
> >> # Default: check these lists.
> >> #
> >> /./ all_rbls
> >>
> >> However, 64.191.79.245 is still being subjected
On 09/24/2010 12:42 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> On 09/24/2010 01:26 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
The other misfeature that I'd like to point out again is the behavior of
been_here() when the hash table is full.
>>>
>>> The alternatives
Fredrik S?derblom:
> Hi,
>
> Why does postfix (2.6.1, 2.7.0) force NOTIFY=NEVER when i change
> a RCPT TO: from a milter?
I haven't seen any no documentation on what the recipient attributes
of addrcpt should be. In the absence of that, Postfix maintains
consistency with other Postfix features th
On 2010-09-22 6:03 PM, Nick Edwards wrote:
> By the way, I need to thank you, given your discussion with Timo was one
> that had set alarm bells off on this, and the thread with Eddie
> confirmed the risks, can't understand Timo's attitude towards it, but as
> he said maybe dovecot is not for anyon
On 2010-09-22 6:01 PM, Nick Edwards wrote:
> The dovecot developer would not care that dovecots pop3 speed
> matches that of couriers pop3, he has stated publicly dovecot is
> developed primarily as imap server, read the dovecot lists archives
> if you are not subscribed there. Everyone knows that
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> On 09/24/2010 01:26 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >> The other misfeature that I'd like to point out again is the behavior of
> >> been_here() when the hash table is full.
> >
> > The alternatives to a limited-size hash are a) run out of memor
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 9/23/2010 8:37 PM:
> # sutton-partners.com
> /^64\.191\.79\.245$/public_rbls
>
> # mabel.ca
> /^70\.38\.108\.42$/ public_rbls
>
> # dsnews.com
> /^209\.172\.40\.21[157]$/ public_rbls
Should the carat and dollar be there? I
Sahil Tandon put forth on 9/24/2010 12:10 AM:
>> Sep 23 10:05:42 mx1 postfix/smtpd[12164]: connect from
>> unknown[64.191.79.245]
> ^^^
Nice catch Sahil. I'd momentarily forgotten the fact that
check_client_access goes after rdns host name as well as IP.
--
Stan
Michael Orlitzky put forth on 9/24/2010 2:37 AM:
> Ok, I see what's going on. 'unknown' gets looked up first, and so /./
> matches it before the client IP address gets looked up. Wouldn't
> check_reverse_client_hostname_access suffer the same fate? I think
> switching to a CIDR map probably avoids
Hi,
Why does postfix (2.6.1, 2.7.0) force NOTIFY=NEVER when i change a RCPT TO:
from a milter?
E.g. doing a delrcpt("old rcpt") and addrcpt("new rcpt"), forces NOTIFY=NEVER.
Log snippet:
Sep 23 22:02:26 seafox postfix/smtp[29516]: >
smtp.domain.cc[192.168.254.253]:25: RCPT TO:
ORCPT=rfc822;n
Hi,
while setting up my first Postfix (2.7) server on a Debian/Lenny
system, along with Dovecot (1.2.x), with most tables maintained in a
PostgreSQL database, I've hit a problem in the mail delivery part (as
opposed to receiving mail) for which I can't see a good solution. Some
advice and/or poin
On 09/24/2010 01:26 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> The other misfeature that I'd like to point out again is the behavior of
>> been_here() when the hash table is full.
>
> The alternatives to a limited-size hash are a) run out of memory and
> try to deliver mail repeatedly
On 09/24/10 01:10, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 21:37:40 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> check_client_access pcre://generic_rbl_clients.pcre,
>>
>> The content of generic_rbl_clients.pcre:
>>
>> # sutton-partners.com
>> /^64\.191\.79\.245$/public_rbls
>>
>> # m
On 09/24/10 00:11, pf at alt-ctrl-del.org wrote:
> "Michael Orlitzky" September 23, 2010 9:37 PM
>> We run a private RBL, jerks.viabit.com, and check against it as well as
>> four other lists at SMTP time. Occasionally, I'll get a false positive
>> due to blocking an entire /24 and want to whitelis
50 matches
Mail list logo
