Am 14.03.2013 21:47, schrieb The Doctor:
> I want to avoid perl-ware like amavisd and MailScanner
>
> Any recommendations for a milter that would drop high spam?
>
spamass-milter
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/spamass-milt/
works nice here
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetterer
--
[*] sys4
On 14.03.2013 21:19, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> There's nothing to manage, just set "myorigin = $mydomain" on each
> null client, and enable masquerading there. Null clients only
> receive mail from local submission (and loopback:25) so doing
> masquerading there is safe and natural.
Well, it's not
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:47:34PM -0600, The Doctor wrote:
> I want to avoid perl-ware like amavisd and MailScanner
Why? Okay, MailScanner is out of question anyway, because it modifies
Postfix queue in unsafe ways. But why not Perl?
> Any recommendations for a milter that would drop high spam?
Thanks for the feedback.
Even a manual execute as root fails:
postmap -v hash:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache
postmap: name_mask: all
postmap: inet_addr_local: configured 3 IPv4 addresses
postmap: inet_addr_local: configured 3 IPv6 addresses
postmap: fatal: open /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cach
Am 14.03.2013 21:47, schrieb The Doctor:
> I want to avoid perl-ware like amavisd and MailScanner
> Any recommendations for a milter that would drop high spam?
i would filter spam ALWAYS with a dedicated spam-firewall
appliance in front of the postfix server acting as MX
signature.asc
Descr
I want to avoid perl-ware like amavisd and MailScanner
Any recommendations for a milter that would drop high spam?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfo
Am 14.03.2013 21:31, schrieb Kris Deugau:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>> usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken
>> setup using a POST queue filter because it results in become
>> a backscatter and you are usually not permitted by law
>> accept a message with "250 OK" and drop it
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
>> Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
>> inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
>> restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder
By "harder" I mea
Am 14.03.2013 21:04, schrieb Ansgar Wiechers:
> On 2013-03-14 Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
>>> Jerry wrote:
Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For
relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot
and Sieve.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 03:19:59PM +0100, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2013-03-14 Gerald Vogt wrote:
> > On 14.03.2013 12:10, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> >>> It seems easier to me to keep the configuration on 100+ servers as
> >>> simple as possible and do all the rewriting on the central relays.
> >>
On 2013-03-14 Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
>> Jerry wrote:
>>> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For
>>> relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot
>>> and Sieve. From what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been
>>
On 14/03/2013 18:28, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:47:18AM +, Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
are send to
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:47:18AM +, Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
> Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
> >Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >>Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
> >>
> >>>Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
> >>>are send to non-existing users, d
Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
> Jerry wrote:
>> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
>> fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
>> what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
>> decade.
>
> Siev
support:
> error: open database /var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache.db: No such file
> or directory
Be sure that SELINUX (or moral equivalent) is not messing up.
Postfix will auto-create this if the OS cooperates.
Wietse
Receiving "postscreen_cache.db" error messages shown below on new
installation. The postscreen_cache.db is not created on startup.
Is a manual command required to create postscreen_cache.db or is the
initial creation automagic? This has happened on several installations
and restart memcache/post
Jerry wrote:
> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
> fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
> what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
> decade.
Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by des
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Jerry wrote:
Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
decade.
I realize this gets away from Postfix per
On 2013-03-14 Percy Kwong wrote:
> I would have smtpd listen on an additional port. (You'll need this
> for some circumstances). In addition, I would also tighten up your
> iptables rules and make sure nobody can get to your mysql server
> socket/port.
>
>
> In master.cf, add the following line:
yeah.. I just have to get around to recompiling and creating an rpm for
centos / RHEL. It's just a relay for now and doesn't require much more
than what it's doing. I'm currently having a "dickens" of a time
dealing with a spammer that decided to target us with their "bot net".
Fun Fun.. lol
Percy Kwong skrev den 2013-03-14 15:18:
**sigh** at least it works.. lol.
forward to postfix 2.10.x as next problem ? :)
On 2013-03-14 Gerald Vogt wrote:
> On 14.03.2013 12:10, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>>> It seems easier to me to keep the configuration on 100+ servers as
>>> simple as possible and do all the rewriting on the central relays.
>>> Seems to be the better approach to me. That's why I came up with
>>> this.
Good Evening!
I did post to clamav-users as well. I originally looked at the LocalNet
solution on clamav-milter.conf with little luck on how to declare the
proper syntax for multiple hosts / ranges.
Go figure.. It actually worked this time. (I just happened to watch the
log for a bit longe
Percy Kwong skrev den 2013-03-14 14:18:
Good Morning,
its nite here :)
I have a question regarding Mail Relay that I haven't been able to
find much clarity on.
see clamav-milter.conf for LocalNet
just be carefull not to allow to much
btw postfix 2.3.3 is very very very old lady :=)
Vijay,
I would have smtpd listen on an additional port. (You'll need this for
some circumstances). In addition, I would also tighten up your iptables
rules and make sure nobody can get to your mysql server socket/port.
In master.cf, add the following line:
# Have SMTPD listen on port 825 a
Hi,
I'm a Postfix newbie... I'm trying to setup my personal Email server. I
have been able to setup Postfix+dovecot+roundcube+Imapproxy. Basically I
have a server with 2 IPv4 addresses, and the mails are stored locally by
dovecot.
I'm able to accept inbound and able to send emails. I'm planning t
Good Morning,
I have a question regarding Mail Relay that I haven't been able to find
much clarity on.
Scenario:
I have a postfix machine with (clamav-milter) and spamassassin
(non-milter) installed. The machine serves as a relay / front-end to an
exchange server.
If an email comes in (v
Archangel skrev den 2013-03-13 20:45:
here's the output of the grep command on mail.log:
Mar 12 17:13:01 mediaserver postfix/smtpd[12785]: error: open
database /etc/postfix/filtered_domains.db: No such file or directory
postmap /etc/postfix/filtered_domains
Viktor Dukhovni skrev den 2013-03-13 18:54:
Sometimes it is easier to have only a subset of valid recipients
admitted
via "permit_auth_destination", so "reject_unauth_destination" would
reject the rest, and one adds the remaining recipients above. Such
configurations are safe, but uncommon.
i
Στις , Jerry έγραψε:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:26 +0500
Muhammad Yousuf Khan articulated:
i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email
however
i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with
Thanks guys, i am using dovecot but i didn't knew in technical term we
call it LDA :P. but i thought procmail delivers emails to the
user-folder only, which i misunderstood , if dovecot, procmail and
courier are LDAs as i perceive from you emails. so no problem in
understanding the functionality of
On 14.03.2013 12:10, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>> It seems easier to me to keep the configuration on 100+ servers as
>> simple as possible and do all the rewriting on the central relays. Seems
>> to be the better approach to me. That's why I came up with this.
>
> Solve the problem at the source; mas
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 12:23:
I'll look into reject_unverified_recipient, thanks for your insight.
good, its just failing to focus on number of emails, it does not change
remote error codes
mailq is possible to parse, remove permit_mynetworks, to force smtp
auth only
Am 14.03.2013 12:47, schrieb Elaconta.com Webmaster:
> Also for more clarification: We require authentication for all of our email
> users, and have hourly email sending
> quotas in place.
> But there's nothing stopping auth'ed users from sending emails to lots of
> non-existent users, and that
Elaconta.com Webmaster wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
are send to non-existing users, disable email relaying for that user
for half an hour, for instance.
i say reject_unverifi
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
are send to non-existing users, disable email relaying for that user
for half an hour, for instance.
i say reject_unverified_recipient one more time
sho
On Mar 14, 2013, at 09:56, Gerald Vogt wrote:
> On 13.03.2013 18:51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> For my $0.02, I abandoned inbound masquerading a long time ago,
>> who needs every email address of the form:
>>
>> u...@your-mother-has-big-email-addresses.example.com
>>
>> I masquerade sender
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 11:48:
Specifically, if a user sends 100 emails and more than 25 of those
are send to non-existing users, disable email relaying for that user
for half an hour, for instance.
i say reject_unverified_recipient one more time
should i give links to pyp
Gerald Vogt:
> The only problem now are e-mails which are sent from the relay itself
> via sendmail. Relay checks don't apply and it will accept any address.
> Which recipient_map applies to e-mails send via sendmail?
There is no "receive time" address validation for sendmail submission.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 10:50:
When that happens, the CPanel server outputs something like:
ask cpanel for support
Domain has exceeded the max defers and failures per hour (5/5 (26%))
allowed. Message discarded.
pretty cool
Is there a way to imp
Elaconta.com Webmaster skrev den 2013-03-14 10:50:
When that happens, the CPanel server outputs something like:
ask cpanel for support
Domain has exceeded the max defers and failures per hour (5/5 (26%))
allowed. Message discarded.
pretty cool
Is there a way to implement this in Postfix?
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:26 +0500
Muhammad Yousuf Khan articulated:
> i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
> that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however
> i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
> system user a
On 3/14/2013 4:44 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
> that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however
> i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
> system user and virtual users wit
Hello
Is there a way in Postfix to limit email relays to non-existent users?
For example, if an email has over 25% failures in its email sending
attemps in the last hour, block that email for an hour or so.
When, say, hacked scripts are used by spammers to send mass emails, this
would help l
i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however
i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
system user and virtual users with no issue. it receive email and drop
it to virtual user d
On 13.03.2013 18:51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> For my $0.02, I abandoned inbound masquerading a long time ago,
> who needs every email address of the form:
>
> u...@your-mother-has-big-email-addresses.example.com
>
> I masquerade sender addresses at the internal MSA so only the
> primary add
On 13.03.2013 16:51, Noel Jones wrote:
> An alternative is to put the recipients in an sql table and use a
> relay_recipient_maps query that ignores or wildcards the domain name.
Well, I have got my test server relaying with a pcre table for the
relay_recipients. It looks ugly but works for mails
On 2013-03-13 Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> first, I have my postfix setup to receive mail and drop it in the
> user's ~/mail directory.
> I'm trying to figure out if there's a way I can have both "virtual"
> users and non virtual users.
You can alias localparts of virtual domains or virtual mailbox
48 matches
Mail list logo
