Re: Issue with header_checks

On 02/14/2011 02:15 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 01:45:28AM +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote: Any idea for the REJECT 4 to reject the header "From: us e...@domain.tld ", ie with a space in the first part. The example I showed you, while bein

Re: Issue with header_checks

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 01:45:28AM +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote: >> Any idea for the REJECT 4 to reject the header "From: us e...@domain.tld >> ", ie with a space in the first part. > > The example I showed you, while being much more readable, already included > the space.

Re: Issue with header_checks

On 2/13/2011 6:37 PM, Franck MAHE wrote: OK, so this configuration seems to work fine. /^From:.*<.*(\[|\]|\(|\)|\`|\;|\,|\^|\#|\:|\||\\|\@|<|>|\/|\!|\ |\$|"|"|\%|\&|').*@.*>/ REJECT "3 - Your Email address is not compliant with RFC, Go Away" if !/^From:.*<.*@.*>/ /^From:.*([|]|\(|\)|`|;|,|^|#

Re: newbie question

Victor Duchovni put forth on 2/11/2011 4:50 PM: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:38:41PM +0100, Gergely Buday wrote: > >> Dear Postfix experts, >> >> I'm new to mailing servers and need advice. Is it reasonable for my >> small company to use my own mail server? How much configuration is >> needed for

Re: OT: How to resolve big ISP mail drop

Gary Smith put forth on 2/11/2011 11:15 AM: > Problem isn't white/grey/black listings, its that they accepted the email > with a valid return code but it never made it to the destination box. It only > seems to be happened on a few recipients. Basically, in short, the > destination ISP (in this

Re: Issue with header_checks

On 02/14/2011 01:37 AM, Franck MAHE wrote: OK, so this configuration seems to work fine. /^From:.*<.*(\[|\]|\(|\)|\`|\;|\,|\^|\#|\:|\||\\|\@|<|>|\/|\!|\ |\$|"|"|\%|\&|').*@.*>/ REJECT "3 - Your Email address is not compliant with RFC, Go Away" if !/^From:.*<.*@.*>/ /^From:.*([|]|\(|\)|`|;|

RE: Issue with header_checks

OK, so this configuration seems to work fine. /^From:.*<.*(\[|\]|\(|\)|\`|\;|\,|\^|\#|\:|\||\\|\@|<|>|\/|\!|\ |\$|"|"|\%|\&|').*@.*>/ REJECT "3 - Your Email address is not compliant with RFC, Go Away" if !/^From:.*<.*@.*>/ /^From:.*([|]|\(|\)|`|;|,|^|#|:|\||\\|@|<|>|\/|!|$|"|%|&|').*@/ REJECT

Re: Issue with header_checks

On 02/14/2011 12:37 AM, Franck MAHE wrote: I did the test on the From header, so I don't understand why the if !/^From:.*<.*@.*>/ don't catch header From: use&r...@domain.tld A. It does catch that, since it doesn't contain either < or >. But B. That is unlike anything you have shown bef

RE: Issue with header_checks

I did the test on the From header, so I don’t understand why the if !/^From:.*<.*@.*>/ don’t catch header From: use&r...@domain.tld I want to catch all character not compliant with the standard in the From Header. Franck --- E:

Re: Issue with header_checks

On 02/14/2011 12:13 AM, Franck MAHE wrote: Hi, OK, but the REJECT 3 works fine, so I think it is an issue with the if, but I don't see why. Define "works fine". What headers did you test, and what was the result ? Franck --- M: +33 6 6042 7249 E: m

RE: Issue with header_checks

Hi, OK, but the REJECT 3 works fine, so I think it is an issue with the if, but I don’t see why. Franck --- M: +33 6 6042 7249 E: m...@civis.net De : owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] De la part de Jeroen Gei

Re: Issue with header_checks

On 02/13/2011 10:33 PM, Franck MAHE wrote: Hello, I've the following in main.cf header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/regexp_table My postfix release is 2.3.8 I've the following in my header_checks regex table: # MAL FORMATED EMAIL ADDRESS /^From:.*\.@.*/ REJECT "1 - Your Email addre

RE: Issue with header_checks

I did the same test on a postfix release 2.6.5, and I’ve the same behavior. Any idea? Franck --- E: m...@civis.net De : Franck MAHE [mailto:m...@civis.net] Envoyé : dimanche 13 février 2011 22:33 À : 'postfix-users@postfix.or

Another pipelining mystery solved

For a while now, Postfix has logged that clients send commands ahead of time (unauthorized pipelining) but I didn't have code to log what those clients actually sent, because those commands haven't been read yet - they still sit in the input buffer. Meanwhile I have been puzzled by this message th

Re: milter or socket?

Darren Pilgrim: > I'm testing a filter that's available as both a milter and as a > postfix-style policy daemon listening on a unix socket. Either way, the > functionality of the filter is identical. Which approach is better? > Milter or unix socket? In this case, better is actually two separ

Issue with header_checks

Hello, I've the following in main.cf header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/regexp_table My postfix release is 2.3.8 I've the following in my header_checks regex table: # MAL FORMATED EMAIL ADDRESS /^From:.*\.@.*/ REJECT "1 - Your Email address is not compliant with RFC, Go Away

milter or socket?

I'm testing a filter that's available as both a milter and as a postfix-style policy daemon listening on a unix socket. Either way, the functionality of the filter is identical. Which approach is better? Milter or unix socket? In this case, better is actually two separate criteria: performan

Re: different server for the same domain

On 02/13/2011 06:06 PM, Simone Caruso wrote: If you mean why doesn't he synchronize all mail storage between the servers - do you really think that that will DECREASE the traffic ? doesn't a san decrease traffic between servers!? That would be the case if he specifically stated he meant

Re: different server for the same domain

Am 13.02.2011 18:06, schrieb Simone Caruso: > >> If you mean why doesn't he synchronize all mail storage between the servers >> - do you really think that that will >> DECREASE the traffic ? >> >> > doesn't a san decrease traffic between servers!? yes it does because it has a dedicated network

Re: different server for the same domain

If you mean why doesn't he synchronize all mail storage between the servers - do you really think that that will DECREASE the traffic ? doesn't a san decrease traffic between servers!? -- Simone Caruso IT Consultant p.iva: 03045250838

Re: postfix-2.9-20110212 segfault in smtp

is redundancy in the internal APIs: multiple > > function arguments propagate the same information, and that same > > information is maintained by different functions, so things got > > out of step when code was updated yesterday. > > Yep, it's working. Thanks. Also uploaded as postfix-2.9-20110213 to ftp.porcupine.org. Wietse

Re: postfix-2.9-20110212 segfault in smtp

* Wietse Venema : > Ralf Hildebrandt: > > This seems to be TLS related, since it happens whenever TLS is being > > used. > > Here is a patch. This part of the TLS library still needs to be > restructured. There is redundancy in the internal APIs: multiple > function arguments propagate the same

Re: postfix-2.9-20110212 segfault in smtp

Ralf Hildebrandt: > This seems to be TLS related, since it happens whenever TLS is being > used. Here is a patch. This part of the TLS library still needs to be restructured. There is redundancy in the internal APIs: multiple function arguments propagate the same information, and that same infor

Re: postfix-2.9-20110212 segfault in smtp

* Ralf Hildebrandt : > postfix-2.9-20110212 is segfaulting in smtp: > > Feb 13 11:07:04 mail postfix/postfix-script[24738]: starting the Postfix mail > system > Feb 13 11:07:04 mail postfix/master[24739]: daemon started -- version > 2.9-20110212, configuration /etc/postfix > Feb 13 11:07:04 mail

postfix-2.9-20110212 segfault in smtp

postfix-2.9-20110212 is segfaulting in smtp: Feb 13 11:07:04 mail postfix/postfix-script[24738]: starting the Postfix mail system Feb 13 11:07:04 mail postfix/master[24739]: daemon started -- version 2.9-20110212, configuration /etc/postfix Feb 13 11:07:04 mail postfix/qmgr[24742]: 98D0E1C3633:

Re: What attack is this one?

Am 12.02.2011 22:53, schrieb Bob Proulx: > A friend's Mac running Postfix logged this rejected attack: > > Feb 11 21:45:28 mailer postfix/smtpd[3708]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from > unknown[216.104.47.74]: 504 5.5.2 : Helo command rejected: need > fully-qualified hostname; from= to= 0&0 2>&0> pr