On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> afshin afzali:
> > > Postfix has no support for senders to specify "do not deliver
> > > this message after X" (i.e. no per-message expiration time).
> > >
> > Of course, for transports such as SMS or voice I need to use custom
> scrips
> >
On 5/18/2011 8:11 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
monitor.example.com[10.2.1.39]: 503 5.5.1 Error: send
HELO/EHLO first
But that's a different error message. For this, you need to set
# main.cf
smtpd_helo_required = no
(which is the default). This setting is not affected by
permit_mynetworks, nor
On 5/18/2011 6:27 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
In master.cf you have "smtpd_delay_reject = no". With this, Postfix
will apply smtpd_sender_restrictions when it receives the MAIL FROM
command, instead of waiting until the RCPT TO command.
In your log, Postfix rejects the MAIL FROM command. This means
Wietse Venema:
> With my own system, permit_mynetworks does override
> reject_unauth_pipelining, so I guess you either aren't matching
> mynetworks, or you have given incorrect confguration info, or the
> Debian maintainer introduced an error.
>
> Below are examples for Postfix versions 2.9 (the l
Shawn Heisey:
> On 5/18/2011 5:09 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > This applies restrictions before RCPT TO, so you reported
> > the wrong Postfix configuration, or you have parameter
> > settings in master.cf that you should also report about.
...
> I actually do hope that this is a mistake on my part
On 5/18/2011 5:09 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
This applies restrictions before RCPT TO, so you reported
the wrong Postfix configuration, or you have parameter
settings in master.cf that you should also report about.
It's the right configuration. Just in case, I made sure I was on the
right serve
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 19:05:11 -0300, Gonzalo Rodriguez wrote:
> May 18 09:49:35 FOOBAR-0010 postfix/local[16584]: 8808D26125:
> to=, relay=local, delay=0.92,
> delays=0.91/0.01/0/0, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to mailbox)
Where is 'foobar.com.ar' listed in your configuration? If you must
Shawn Heisey:
> smtpd_delay_reject = yes
This will apply the client, helo, and sender restrictions
AFTER Postfix receives the RCPT TO command.
In other words, Postfix never applies restrictions when the
client connects, when the client send EHLO, or when the
client sends the MAIL FROM command.
>
Wietse Venema:
> Shawn Heisey:
> > smtpd_data_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
> > reject_unauth_pipelining, reject_multi_recipient_bounce
>
> permit_mynetworks has NO EFFECT in smtpd_data_restrictions,
> because SMTP is a multi-recipient protocol.
Sorry, that is bogus.
Wietse
Shawn Heisey:
> smtpd_data_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
> reject_unauth_pipelining, reject_multi_recipient_bounce
permit_mynetworks has NO EFFECT in smtpd_data_restrictions,
because SMTP is a multi-recipient protocol.
Wietse
On 5/18/2011 2:57 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 5/18/2011 3:39 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
I am having a problem that IMHO should be solved by the
following in main.cf. I am using version 2.7.1 in Debian squeeze:
smtpd_data_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_pipelining,
reject_multi_recipie
* Gonzalo Rodriguez :
> Hi all,
>
> I have a problem with my dovecot/postfix configuration:
...
> May 18 09:49:35 FOOBAR-0010 postfix/local[16584]: 8808D26125:
> to=, relay=local, delay=0.92,
> delays=0.91/0.01/0/0, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to mailbox)
foobar.com.ar is considered local
Hi all,
I have a problem with my dovecot/postfix configuration:
here is my dovecot -n
# 1.2.16: /etc/dovecot.conf
Warning: fd limit 128 is lower than what Dovecot can use under full
load (more than 768). Either grow the limit or change
login_max_processes_count and max_mail_processes settings
#
On 5/18/2011 3:39 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
I am having a problem that IMHO should be solved by the
following in main.cf. I am using version 2.7.1 in Debian squeeze:
smtpd_data_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_pipelining,
reject_multi_recipient_bounce
This says to me that if the ho
I am having a problem that IMHO should be solved by the following in
main.cf. I am using version 2.7.1 in Debian squeeze:
smtpd_data_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_pipelining,
reject_multi_recipient_bounce
This says to me that if the host is listed in mynetworks, it s
Darek M:
> May 18 16:22:49 m postfix-in/smtp[7806]: connect to
> spam1.ihostexchange.net[66.46.182.95]:25: Permission denied
> May 18 16:22:49 m postfix-in/smtp[7806]: connect to
> spam2.ihostexchange.net[66.46.182.95]:25: Permission denied
> May 18 16:22:49 m postfix-in/smtp[7806]: 7081A1088FA:
>
May 18 16:22:49 m postfix-in/smtp[7806]: connect to
spam1.ihostexchange.net[66.46.182.95]:25: Permission denied
May 18 16:22:49 m postfix-in/smtp[7806]: connect to
spam2.ihostexchange.net[66.46.182.95]:25: Permission denied
May 18 16:22:49 m postfix-in/smtp[7806]: 7081A1088FA:
to=, relay=none, dela
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 5/18/2011 1:30 PM, Lima Union wrote:
>>
>> One last question regarding this, due that the amount of spam is huge
>> I'd like to catch some of these messages, how should I configure
>> Postfix in order to let this kind of messages (beginning w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/11 14:43, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This should be possible with one Postfix
> {SNIP}
> No firewalling needed.
To bring closure to this thread and perhaps benefit others in the future:
As part of a defense-in-depth security strategy a strict IP
On 5/18/2011 1:30 PM, Lima Union wrote:
One last question regarding this, due that the amount of spam is huge
I'd like to catch some of these messages, how should I configure
Postfix in order to let this kind of messages (beginning with /^0-/ )
bypass all my checks (RBL,etc) and redirect them to
Jeroen Geilman:
> On 05/18/2011 08:52 PM, Vick Khera wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, evilgh...@packetmail.net
> > wrote:
> >> I'm certainly open for any suggestions for accommodating my goal of
> >> applying an
> >> IPv4 relayhost to non-IPv6 capable traffic if there is such a way to
On 05/18/2011 08:52 PM, Vick Khera wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, evilgh...@packetmail.net
wrote:
I'm certainly open for any suggestions for accommodating my goal of applying an
IPv4 relayhost to non-IPv6 capable traffic if there is such a way to accomplish
this goal with the existing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/11 13:52, Vick Khera wrote:
> What if you do this: eliminate the ability of your mail server to send
> SMTP over IPv4, possibly by removing any IPv4 address from it, or
> firewalling that ability away.
>
> Set up fallback_relay on this host s
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM, evilgh...@packetmail.net
wrote:
>
> I'm certainly open for any suggestions for accommodating my goal of applying
> an
> IPv4 relayhost to non-IPv6 capable traffic if there is such a way to
> accomplish
> this goal with the existing configuration directives.
>
Wh
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 5/18/2011 8:54 AM, Steve wrote:
>>
>> Original-Nachricht
>>>
>>> Datum: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:49:25 -0500
>>> Von: Noel Jones
>>> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Filtering spam with a partial pattern
>>
>>> On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/11 13:24, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> But that is not what you have DONE.
Yes, because evidently the two are mutually exclusive. A relayhost cannot be
defined for only IPv4 traffic nor can it be configured to not effect IPv6
capable traffic.
Es
On 05/18/2011 08:23 PM, evilgh...@packetmail.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/11 13:19, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
Consider why you have set a global relayhost; apparently, you want ALL mail
delivered via this one host.
Negative, I want all IPv4-only, non-IPv6 trans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/11 13:19, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> Consider why you have set a global relayhost; apparently, you want ALL mail
> delivered via this one host.
Negative, I want all IPv4-only, non-IPv6 transit capable, mail delivered via
this host.
- --
- -ev
On 05/18/2011 08:15 PM, evilgh...@packetmail.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/11 13:02, Wietse Venema wrote:
The Postfix documentation only describes the features that are
implemented. Therefore if you can't find something then you can
safely assume that it is n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/11 13:02, Wietse Venema wrote:
> The Postfix documentation only describes the features that are
> implemented. Therefore if you can't find something then you can
> safely assume that it is not supported.
Dr. Venema, thank you for your reply.
evilgh...@packetmail.net:
> Hello, I may have a somewhat unique situation regarding an IPv4
> relayhost on an IPv4 and IPv6 enabled Postfix MTA; it seems that
> even for an IPv6 capable recipient MTA the IPv4 relayhost is used.
> Is there a way to bind/enforce the relayhost to be IPv4 only, as
> in
afshin afzali:
> > Postfix has no support for senders to specify "do not deliver
> > this message after X" (i.e. no per-message expiration time).
> >
> Of course, for transports such as SMS or voice I need to use custom scrips
> to wrap postfix to appropriate managers. In these scripts I will check
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello, I may have a somewhat unique situation regarding an IPv4 relayhost on an
IPv4 and IPv6 enabled Postfix MTA; it seems that even for an IPv6 capable
recipient MTA the IPv4 relayhost is used. Is there a way to bind/enforce the
relayhost to be IPv4
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> afshin afzali:
> > I need to get custom control over defer queue. My emails need to
> > be sent in specified time-frame.
>
> Wietse:
> > /etc/postfix/main.cf:
> >maximal_queue_lifetime = 3600s
> >maximal_backoff_time = 600s
> >
> > T
On 5/18/2011 8:54 AM, Steve wrote:
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:49:25 -0500
Von: Noel Jones
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: Filtering spam with a partial pattern
On 5/18/2011 8:06 AM, Lima Union wrote:
Hi all! i'm seeing a huge quantity of spam
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Steve wrote:
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Datum: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:49:25 -0500
>> Von: Noel Jones
>> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
>> Betreff: Re: Filtering spam with a partial pattern
>
>> On 5/18/2011 8:06 AM, Lima Union wrote:
>> > Hi all! i'm
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:49:25 -0500
> Von: Noel Jones
> An: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Betreff: Re: Filtering spam with a partial pattern
> On 5/18/2011 8:06 AM, Lima Union wrote:
> > Hi all! i'm seeing a huge quantity of spam during this week (~156K
>
On 5/18/2011 8:06 AM, Lima Union wrote:
Hi all! i'm seeing a huge quantity of spam during this week (~156K
messages) all from an smtp addresses that begins with '0-', like:
from=<0...@cancer.org>
from=<0-1z3ize-...@bxbmail.de>
from=<0...@carnival.com>
from=<0-gentil...@aditi.com>
from=<0-happy-1
Hi all! i'm seeing a huge quantity of spam during this week (~156K
messages) all from an smtp addresses that begins with '0-', like:
from=<0...@cancer.org>
from=<0-1z3ize-...@bxbmail.de>
from=<0...@carnival.com>
from=<0-gentil...@aditi.com>
from=<0-happy-1...@msf.biglobe.ne.jp>
from=<0-downl...@so
On 05/18/2011 12:53 AM, Digest of postfix-users list wrote:
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 17:37:22 +0200
From: Mark Martinec
Subject: Re: Timed out while sending message body
> Tomasz K. Jarzynka:
> > Finally, I ran a tcpdump on our origin mail server, our firewall
> > and the destinantion mail
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> The usual suspects are:
>
> - these are not really generated from your machine, but rather bounces of
> undeliverable mail you've previously accepted. Don't accept mail you can't
> or won't deliver.
>
> - an insecure web script is being exploi
41 matches
Mail list logo
