On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:13:48 -0500
Noel Jones wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 7:02 AM, J. Bakshi wrote:
>
> >>> an alternative (that will also work for mail submitted via the sendmail
> >>> comand) is to use transport_maps:
> >>>
> >>> nore...@example.com error:...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Note that if yo
* Grobe, Tony :
> If the client uses EHLO and the server response includes a SIZE
> statement, the client will often disconnect without issuing a command
> because it knows the message is undeliverable. In this case, the server
> has no information to log about why this happened.
This also happen
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:44:16PM +0900, Ian Masters wrote:
> Is it possible to block all attachments with postfix? I'm using
> /etc/postfix/mime_header_checks but I can't seem to block all attachments,
> especially ones without file suffixes.
Be careful what you wish for: The question of what i
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:11 PM -0400 "Grobe, Tony"
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Quanah Gibson-Mount
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:49 PM
>> Is there any way to customize the error me
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> >> unknown[xx.xx.xx.xxx]
> >> Sep 19 14:15:43 zcs7-ga postfix/smtpd[23718]: lost connection after EHLO
.,.
> The server is the one rejecting the mail because it passed a limit set in
> postfix.
No, the CLIENT hangs up after sending EHLO. The server rejects nothing.
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:49 PM
>
> >> Is there any way to customize the error message logged by postfix so
> >> admins viewing the postfix lo
Am 20.10.2011 21:48, schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> --On Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:42 PM +0200 Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>> how should this work? the server does NOT know why the
>> CLIENT is closing the connection
>
> The server is the one rejecting the mail because it passed a limit set in
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> While a user gets a fairly meaningful message when something is bounced
> because they hit message_size_limit, admins running the server don't seem
> to:
>
> A user gets:
>
> : message size 18302670 exceeds size limit
> 5024000 of server zcs7-ga.qa.qalab.com[xx.xx.xx.xxx]
On Thursday 20 October 2011 14:48:30 Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:42 PM +0200 Reindl Harald
>
> wrote:
> > Am 20.10.2011 21:33, schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> >> A user gets:
> >> : message size 18302670 exceeds size
> >> limit 5024000 of server zcs7-ga.qa.qalab.
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:42 PM +0200 Reindl Harald
wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 21:33, schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
A user gets:
: message size 18302670 exceeds size limit
5024000 of server zcs7-ga.qa.qalab.com[xx.xx.xx.xxx]
The admin only gets to see:
Sep 19 14:15
--On Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:42 PM +0200 Reindl Harald
wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 21:33, schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
A user gets:
: message size 18302670 exceeds size limit
5024000 of server zcs7-ga.qa.qalab.com[xx.xx.xx.xxx]
The admin only gets to see:
Sep 19 14:15:43 zcs7-ga postfix/smtp
Am 20.10.2011 21:33, schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> A user gets:
> : message size 18302670 exceeds size limit
> 5024000 of server zcs7-ga.qa.qalab.com[xx.xx.xx.xxx]
>
> The admin only gets to see:
> Sep 19 14:15:43 zcs7-ga postfix/smtpd[23718]: connect from
> unknown[xx.xx.xx.xxx]
> Sep 19 14:15
While a user gets a fairly meaningful message when something is bounced
because they hit message_size_limit, admins running the server don't seem
to:
A user gets:
: message size 18302670 exceeds size limit
5024000 of server zcs7-ga.qa.qalab.com[xx.xx.xx.xxx]
The admin only gets to see:
Sep 1
Amira Othman:
> Hi all
>
> I'm using the Postfix mail server and I have 6 IPs available. I'd like to
> make each mail domain use different ip address. Is that possible with
> postfix and how can I implement this??
You also want the right domain name in "sorry your mail could not
be delivered" mes
On 10/20/2011 8:33 AM, Roland de Lepper wrote:
> I have a script for adding disclaimers to all outgoing email. (see
> disclaimer-script below)
> The line, "cat >in.$$ ||", caps the message in a tempfile. the last
> sendmail command takes the message and sends it to qmrg.
Change the sendmail comma
On 10/20/2011 8:40 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> I'm considering if I should enable opportunistic TLS on our smtp
> gateways.
Good idea. Opportunistic TLS is good for preventing eavesdropping.
> Our gateways are known by several DNS names, so I think it
> will be difficult to use certificate
Am 20.10.2011 16:09, schrieb Jan-Frode Myklebust:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:44:03AM -0500, k...@rice.edu wrote:
>>
>> I would think that a SAN cert with all the names of the gateways
>> listed should work and is available from most "reputabble" CA's.
>
> Yes, you're right, and then there are
Hi all
I'm using the Postfix mail server and I have 6 IPs available. I'd like to
make each mail domain use different ip address. Is that possible with
postfix and how can I implement this??
Regards
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:44:03AM -0500, k...@rice.edu wrote:
>
> I would think that a SAN cert with all the names of the gateways
> listed should work and is available from most "reputabble" CA's.
Yes, you're right, and then there are cheap wildcard certs too -- but
that adds maintenance. Will
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 03:40:57PM +0200, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> I'm considering if I should enable opportunistic TLS on our smtp
> gateways. Our gateways are known by several DNS names, so I think it
> will be difficult to use certificates signed by a "reputable" CA.
>
> It seems safe enou
I'm considering if I should enable opportunistic TLS on our smtp
gateways. Our gateways are known by several DNS names, so I think it
will be difficult to use certificates signed by a "reputable" CA.
It seems safe enough to enable smtp_tls_security_level=may, but how
do other mailservers behave i
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 7:08 AM, Roland de Lepper wrote:
> > Hi Noel,
> >
> > Sorry, but that is not working.
> >
> > The first filter (Disclaimer), caps the message to a tempfile. The
> > last sendmail command put that file and sends the message back to
On 10/20/2011 7:02 AM, J. Bakshi wrote:
>>> an alternative (that will also work for mail submitted via the sendmail
>>> comand) is to use transport_maps:
>>>
>>> nore...@example.com error:...
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that if you don't want to receive errors for such mail, then you
>>> should use a "null s
On 10/20/2011 7:08 AM, Roland de Lepper wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> Sorry, but that is not working.
>
> The first filter (Disclaimer), caps the message to a tempfile. The
> last sendmail command put that file and sends the message back to
> the queuemanager.
>
> I tried all, but doesn't seem to work.
On 20/10/11 13:07, Dennis Guhl wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:27:27PM +0200, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
>> Hello Dennis, thank for your comments, they are much appreciated.
>> I hope I understand enough to formulate a valid reply.
>
> It looks quite good (at least to me as a native german).
I w
Simone Piccardi:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Hi,
>
> still in the topic of trying to deliver email to a Dovecot public folder
> I resort to use Dovecot deliver. I still used virtual, but with the
> following in main.cf
>
> dovecot_destination_recipient_limit = 1
> virtua
Hi Noel,
Sorry, but that is not working.
The first filter (Disclaimer), caps the message to a tempfile. The last
sendmail command put that file and sends the message back to the
queuemanager.
I tried all, but doesn't seem to work. That's why I did it that way, but
that doesn't explain why mails
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:18:01 +0530
"J. Bakshi" wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:31:30 +0200
> mouss wrote:
>
> > Le 12/10/2011 12:01, J. Bakshi a écrit :
> > > [snip]
> > >>
> > >> set the restriction before permit i.e
> > >>
> > > smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> > > check_recipient_a
Hi,
still in the topic of trying to deliver email to a Dovecot public folder
I resort to use Dovecot deliver. I still used virtual, but with the
following in main.cf
dovecot_destination_recipient_limit = 1
virtual_mailbox_domains = shared.folder
virtual_transport = dovecot
then I defined in
On 10/20/2011 5:22 AM, Roland de Lepper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've configured Postfix to do header_checks on all incoming mail.
> The header_checks check if the To: address is one in the
> header_checks file and then do an action (FILTER in my case)
>
> I had to do the filtering this way because I was
On 10/20/2011 4:07 AM, Ian Masters wrote:
>> That's wrong syntax...
>>
>> /name=*\.*/ REJECT no attachments allowed
>>
>> means:
>>
>> "name" followed by an arbitrary number of "="
>> followed by an arbitrary number of "."
>>
>> You probably meant:
>>
>> /name=/ REJECT no attachments allowed
>
> T
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:27:27PM +0200, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> Hello Dennis, thank for your comments, they are much appreciated.
> I hope I understand enough to formulate a valid reply.
It looks quite good (at least to me as a native german).
> On 20/10/11 12:08, Dennis Guhl wrote:
> > On Th
Hello Dennis, thank for your comments, they are much appreciated.
I hope I understand enough to formulate a valid reply.
On 20/10/11 12:08, Dennis Guhl wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:31:50AM +0200, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
>> On 19/10/11 21:00, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/sp
Hi,
I've configured Postfix to do header_checks on all incoming mail.
The header_checks check if the To: address is one in the header_checks file
and then do an action (FILTER in my case)
I had to do the filtering this way because I was not able to get 2
content_filtering working the on the same
Hello,
Just to add that Thawte has changed the certificat chain with wildcard
certificate. Now, there is a new intermediate CA that you have to add in
the chain.
So, if you are in a case of certificate renewal, it can be "normal" that
the old process you've used last time didn't work for now
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:31:50AM +0200, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> On 19/10/11 21:00, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
[..]
> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSpamdInPostfix, whose
> > first lines clearly mention the flaws you're system will run into
> > (generate backscatter, for instance)
>
> Except when an attachment does not have a name. Eg inline images in a html
> email.
>
> Sorry about the top post.. my current mail client leaves much to be desired.
ah, that's interesting ... the inline part anyway ... thanks
* Ian Masters :
> > That's wrong syntax...
> >
> > /name=*\.*/ REJECT no attachments allowed
> >
> > means:
> >
> > "name" followed by an arbitrary number of "="
> > followed by an arbitrary number of "."
> >
> > You probably meant:
> >
> > /name=/ REJECT no attachments allowed
>
> Thanks for
> That's wrong syntax...
>
> /name=*\.*/ REJECT no attachments allowed
>
> means:
>
> "name" followed by an arbitrary number of "="
> followed by an arbitrary number of "."
>
> You probably meant:
>
> /name=/ REJECT no attachments allowed
Thanks for pointing that out. I wonder why it worked .
* Ian Masters :
> > Preferably reject but removing the attachment might be acceptable.
>
> Well, this seems to have done it:
>
> /name=*\.*/ REJECT no attachments allowed
That's wrong syntax...
/name=*\.*/ REJECT no attachments allowed
means:
"name" followed by an arbitrary number of "="
fol
* Svoop :
> Mail clients such as Outlook breach standards by translating "Re" e.g. to "AW"
> (German short for "Antwort"). This results in cascades such as "Re: AW: Re:
> AW:
> Hello World" as a message goes hence and forth. I've written a simple
> header_check which sanitizies this madness:
>
>
On 19/10/11 21:00, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>> I agree and that's exactly my current solution, but I have some
>> questions regarding how I'm doing that. Without repeating myself, can
>> you please have a look at my configuration in the mail that originated
>> this thread and comment on my solution?
>
> Preferably reject but removing the attachment might be acceptable.
Well, this seems to have done it:
/name=*\.*/ REJECT no attachments allowed
How embarrassingly simple.
Sorry for the noise.
Zitat von Noel Jones :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/19/2011 9:04 PM, Svoop wrote:
Mail clients such as Outlook breach standards by translating
"Re" e.g. to "AW" (German short for "Antwort"). This results in
cascades such as "Re: AW: Re: AW: Hello World" as a message
goes
> Do you want to REJECT all emails containing an attachment? Or do you
> want to remove the attachment and let the message go trough?
Thanks for the reply.
Preferably reject but removing the attachment might be acceptable.
Ian
Am 20.10.2011 04:04, schrieb Svoop:
> Mail clients such as Outlook breach standards by translating "Re" e.g. to "AW"
> (German short for "Antwort"). This results in cascades such as "Re: AW: Re:
> AW:
> Hello World" as a message goes hence and forth. I've written a simple
> header_check which sa
46 matches
Mail list logo
