Re: mail gets bounced when send to local bitdefender smtpd

Am Dienstag 19 Juli 2011, 22:20:25 schrieb mouss: > Le 19/07/2011 09:05, Jeroen Geilman a écrit : > > On 2011-07-19 00:31, mouss wrote: > >> Le 18/07/2011 19:01, Jeroen Geilman a écrit : > >>> On 2011-07-17 20:19, mouss wrote: > Le 17/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Zehbe a écrit : > > Hello List, >

Re: With soft_bounce set to no, we are seeing a lot of send failures that look like they should be permanent 554's being handled as temporary.

On 07/19/2011 09:39 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: >> >> I think it would be useful to maintain a list of the parameters with >> non-standard default values. I for one still notice and fix things like >> this every few months. >> >> I'd be willing to look through the main.cf documentation for settings >>

Re: With soft_bounce set to no, we are seeing a lot of send failures that look like they should be permanent 554's being handled as temporary.

Michael Orlitzky: > On 07/19/2011 05:44 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > smtp_skip_5xx_greeting (default: yes) > >Skip SMTP servers that greet with a 5XX status code (go away, do > > not > >try again later). > > > >By default, the Postfix SMTP client moves on the next

Re: still having problems w/ subdomain delivery

On 7/19/2011 6:45 PM, Jay G. Scott wrote: > Thanks to all who have tried to help me so far. > I'm sorry to be such a pest. I've tried a number of things and still > can't get it. > > Management wants email to > user@ .arlut.utexas.edu > will be treated as though it had been addressed to >

Re: With soft_bounce set to no, we are seeing a lot of send failures that look like they should be permanent 554's being handled as temporary.

On 07/19/2011 05:44 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > smtp_skip_5xx_greeting (default: yes) >Skip SMTP servers that greet with a 5XX status code (go away, do not >try again later). > >By default, the Postfix SMTP client moves on the next mail exchanger. >Specify "s

still having problems w/ subdomain delivery

Thanks to all who have tried to help me so far. I'm sorry to be such a pest. I've tried a number of things and still can't get it. Management wants email to user@ .arlut.utexas.edu will be treated as though it had been addressed to u...@arlut.utexas.edu (sendmail can do this.)

Re: dovecot lmtp

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:03:38PM -0700, Kendall Shaw wrote: > Okay, but I am not sending mail to @localhost. I send to > ks...@kendallshaw.com. Fetchmail sends RCPT TO:. There > is the header To: ks...@kendallshaw.com in the message. Does postfix decide > on the destination based on the To he

Re: using ${recipient} in transport definitions/master.cf

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 01:30:24PM -0700, Brian Andrus wrote: > > Hmph..no wonder my foot hurts! > > I do use virtual domains and have all that working, I just wanted to allow > for folks with virtual domain accounts to have their own .procmailrc to > have individualized spamassassin rulesets. >

Re: dovecot lmtp

On 07/19/2011 01:32 PM, mouss wrote: Le 19/07/2011 22:00, Kendall Shaw a écrit : Your setup is ok, but your test is not... you have defined virtual_transport to be dovecot, but this only applies to virtual_mailbox_domains. you didn't explicitely specify mydestination, so the default applies: $

Re: dovecot lmtp

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 01:00:50PM -0700, Kendall Shaw wrote: > RCPT TO: > > In the log, messages about delivery for that message look like: > > ... postfix/qmgr[9145]: 41B0F692043: from=, > size=2763, nrcpt=1 (queue active) > > ... postfix/local[7649]: 41B0F692043: > to=, orig_to=, >

Re: With soft_bounce set to no, we are seeing a lot of send failures that look like they should be permanent 554's being handled as temporary.

Donovan Bray: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > Jul 19 19:25:35 myserver postfix/error[14000]: D075AA21004: to=< > z...@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=0.36, delays=0.36/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, > status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host > mx2.comcast.net[76.96.30.116] > ref

Re: With soft_bounce set to no, we are seeing a lot of send failures that look like they should be permanent 554's being handled as temporary.

On 7/19/2011 4:23 PM, Donovan Bray wrote: > Jul 19 19:25:35 myserver postfix/error[14000]: D075AA21004: > to=mailto:z...@comcast.net>>, relay=none, > delay=0.36, delays=0.36/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery > temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net > [76.96.3

With soft_bounce set to no, we are seeing a lot of send failures that look like they should be permanent 554's being handled as temporary.

Jul 19 19:25:35 myserver postfix/error[14000]: D075AA21004: to=< z...@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=0.36, delays=0.36/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.30.116] refused to talk to me: 554imta33.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast 204.1

Confused about "Advanced Content Filters"

As specified on the http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README.html page. So, here is my current setup from master.cf: smtpinetn - n - - smtpd -o content_filter=dspam:unix:/var/dspam/dspam.sock dspam unix- - n - - lmtp -o smtp_

Re: dovecot lmtp

Le 19/07/2011 22:00, Kendall Shaw a écrit : > Hello, > > I am using postfix 2.7.2, dovecot 2.0.8 and fetchmail 6.3.17 from > pkgsrc on netbsd 5.1 x86 on my home LAN. I am sorry if this turns out > to be a fetchmail or dovecot question. > > I want to have messages filtered using sieve in dovecot,

Re: using ${recipient} in transport definitions/master.cf

Hmph..no wonder my foot hurts! I do use virtual domains and have all that working, I just wanted to allow for folks with virtual domain accounts to have their own .procmailrc to have individualized spamassassin rulesets. I haven't given up. I am thinking maybe a limited pipe to sudo :) More

Re: mail gets bounced when send to local bitdefender smtpd

Le 19/07/2011 09:05, Jeroen Geilman a écrit : > On 2011-07-19 00:31, mouss wrote: >> Le 18/07/2011 19:01, Jeroen Geilman a écrit : >>> On 2011-07-17 20:19, mouss wrote: Le 17/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Zehbe a écrit : > Hello List, > > I have an installtion using bitdefender as a virus

Re: Filtering recipient against sender

Le 19/07/2011 01:53, Robert Schmid a écrit : > > On Jul 18, 2011, at 5:47 PM, mouss wrote: > >> Le 18/07/2011 21:41, Robert Schmid a écrit : >>> Ever since I discovered wildcard addressing in qmail (recipient delimiters >>> in postfix) I have been using them to identify which companies and >>>

dovecot lmtp

Hello, I am using postfix 2.7.2, dovecot 2.0.8 and fetchmail 6.3.17 from pkgsrc on netbsd 5.1 x86 on my home LAN. I am sorry if this turns out to be a fetchmail or dovecot question. I want to have messages filtered using sieve in dovecot, but postfix appears to be storing messages directly into

Re: using ${recipient} in transport definitions/master.cf

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:26:46AM -0700, Brian Andrus wrote: > > I thought as much, unfortunately, since the local accounts have an '@' sign > in them, using procmail as local delivery seems to not be happy. > > So now the question becomes: > Is there a way to get postfix to allow '@' signs as p

Re: using ${recipient} in transport definitions/master.cf

Brian Andrus: > > I thought as much, unfortunately, since the local accounts have an '@' > sign in them, using procmail as local delivery seems to not be happy. For a Postfix procmail example, see: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#mailbox_command Wietse

Re: using ${recipient} in transport definitions/master.cf

I thought as much, unfortunately, since the local accounts have an '@' sign in them, using procmail as local delivery seems to not be happy. So now the question becomes: Is there a way to get postfix to allow '@' signs as part of a user name when using the local transport? eg: for my email

Re: User not Logged in

On 7/19/2011 7:26 AM, Dave Johnson wrote: > Hi All > > I am getting the following error on a new installation > > : host smtphost.x.com[xxx.xxx.xx] > said: > 553 5.7.1 : Sender address rejected: not > logged in (in reply to RCPT TO command) > > : host smtphost.x.com[..xxx

Re: using ${recipient} in transport definitions/master.cf

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 09:01:43AM -0700, Brian Andrus wrote: > I wanted to use one of the built-in variables for the user= portion of a > pipe in master.cf, but it seems postfix does not substitute it for that > part. Correct, reasonable and not surprising. Only the "argv" list supports variab

using ${recipient} in transport definitions/master.cf

All, I wanted to use one of the built-in variables for the user= portion of a pipe in master.cf, but it seems postfix does not substitute it for that part. Is this the case? Is it possible to do something like: procmail unix -n n - - pipe -o flags=RO user=${

Re: reinjection via unix socket

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:29:57PM +0200, Lars T??uber wrote: > > If that's indeed the situation, review the security implications; you > > can either use ACLs to permit the dspam user execute permission fix that > > up (if supported and enabled on your /var filesystem), or you can > > consider ma

Re: reinjection via unix socket

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:11:57PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > If that's indeed the situation, review the security implications; you > can either use ACLs to permit the dspam user execute permission fix that > up (if supported and enabled on your /var filesystem), or you can > consider making

Re: reinjection via unix socket

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:02:34PM +0200, Lars T??uber wrote: > The unix socket can't be used by other users than root or postfix. > Is there a way to configure ownership and/or permissions for the socket? No, the parent directory: $queue_directory/private, must be protected from users other than

Re: reinjection via unix socket

Hi Matthias, Am Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:11:57 +0200 Matthias Andree schrieb: > Am 19.07.2011 17:02, schrieb Lars Täuber: > > Hi Wietse, > > > > the unix socket can't be used by other users than root or postfix. > > Is there a way to configure ownership and/or permissions for the socket? > > > > I t

Re: reinjection via unix socket

Am 19.07.2011 17:02, schrieb Lars Täuber: > Hi Wietse, > > the unix socket can't be used by other users than root or postfix. > Is there a way to configure ownership and/or permissions for the socket? > > I thought under Linux the filesystem permissions reflect the permissions to > the unix socke

Re: reinjection via unix socket

Hi Wietse, the unix socket can't be used by other users than root or postfix. Is there a way to configure ownership and/or permissions for the socket? I thought under Linux the filesystem permissions reflect the permissions to the unix socket. Here is my config and the socket: master.cf: backdoo

Re: Date: header - Received instead of sent?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 03:44:38PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > > > Header checks is most profitably used to reject time-traveling messages > > from the future. > > But then you wouldn't want to block these, for obvious reasons. ;-) Touché. Ersatz time-traveling messages from the future.

Re: Date: header - Received instead of sent?

> Header checks is most profitably used to reject time-traveling messages > from the future. But then you wouldn't want to block these, for obvious reasons. ;-) -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hin

Re: Date: header - Received instead of sent?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 08:59:24AM +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > I use a (relatively) simple regex header check to winnow out old or > impossible dates; alas, it is not possible to compare two headers with > header_checks. Rejecting old dates is not very safe, messages can be Resent, in some c

Re: Resources, Exploits, other bounces

lst_ho...@kwsoft.de: >[delivered-to loop detection] > I was not aware of this one. As far as i can see this is only a > problem if "local" is used, no? Wietse: > > Both local(8) and pipe(8) (one has Delivered-To: enabled by default, > > the other has this off by default for historical compatibilit

Re: Resources, Exploits, other bounces

Zitat von Wietse Venema : lst_ho...@kwsoft.de: Zitat von Noel Jones : > > - Spoofed Delivered-to:. AFAIK this has never been a major > problem, and is a useful feature to detect mail loops. If it > becomes a problem, you can use header_checks to IGNORE > Delivered-to (will let a loop run unti

Re: Resources, Exploits, other bounces

lst_ho...@kwsoft.de: > Zitat von Noel Jones : > > > > > - Spoofed Delivered-to:. AFAIK this has never been a major > > problem, and is a useful feature to detect mail loops. If it > > becomes a problem, you can use header_checks to IGNORE > > Delivered-to (will let a loop run until too many hops

Re: User not Logged in

Am 19.07.2011 14:26, schrieb Dave Johnson: > Hi All > > I am getting the following error on a new installation > > : host smtphost.x.com[xxx.xxx.xx] > said: > 553 5.7.1 : Sender address rejected: not > logged in (in reply to RCPT TO command) > > : host smtphost.x.com[..

User not Logged in

Hi All I am getting the following error on a new installation : host smtphost.x.com[xxx.xxx.xx] said: 553 5.7.1 : Sender address rejected: not logged in (in reply to RCPT TO command) : host smtphost.x.com[..] said: 553 5.7.1 : Sender address rejected: not logged i

Re: Anyone solely using SMTP Auth for outbound mail?

Bernhard Rohrer wrote: > > seconded, only that submission is 587 ;) > Yes, of course! Stupid me :-)

Re: allow access from one specific TLD to one specific recipient in "access" file

Hi Mouss, That sounds just like what I need - thanx - I'll go play with my testserver! - TvE On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:54 AM, mouss wrote: > Le 18/07/2011 23:50, Thomas von Eyben a écrit : >> Hi List, >> >> I have been searching google and man pages etc. but been unable to >> find the answer s

Re: Resources, Exploits, other bounces

Zitat von Noel Jones : - Spoofed Delivered-to:. AFAIK this has never been a major problem, and is a useful feature to detect mail loops. If it becomes a problem, you can use header_checks to IGNORE Delivered-to (will let a loop run until too many hops are in the Received: headers, or until som

Re: mail gets bounced when send to local bitdefender smtpd

On 2011-07-19 00:31, mouss wrote: Le 18/07/2011 19:01, Jeroen Geilman a écrit : On 2011-07-17 20:19, mouss wrote: Le 17/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Zehbe a écrit : Hello List, I have an installtion using bitdefender as a virus scanner using the content_filter option. bitdefender's smtp daemon liste

Re: Date: header - Received instead of sent?

On 2011-07-19 00:52, mouss wrote: Le 18/07/2011 23:38, Pablo Chamorro a écrit : Could somebody please tell me if it's possible to setup Postfix in order to make the reception date is shown instead of the email-messages sent-date? The Date: header is defined by the standard as the date the mes