Good day,
Please my smtp based on postfix its sending me a messages with the above
subject and body:
Postfix SMTP server: errors from mail-ve0-f174.google.com[209.85.128.174]
Transcript of session follows.
Out: 220 Great Kom Networks (Pty) LTD, Ready.
In: EHLO mail-ve0-f174.google.com
Ou
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 10:00:38PM -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 07:30:35PM -0700, warpspasm wrote:
> > I would like to be able to have a postfix server that only
> > allows outgoing emails from one From: address.
> >
> > Any ideas? Thanks
>
> Sure. As alluded above, that goal
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:25:02AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> If Peer Heinlein would be kind enough to post
> the Exim version that exhibits the problem and any relevant settings,
> that would help narrow down the problem.
Also the version of GnuTLS with which Exim is linked.
--
Vi
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 07:30:35PM -0700, warpspasm wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote
> > warpspasm:
> >> Wietse Venema wrote
> >> > warpspasm:
> >> >> I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one
> >> >> From: address
> >> >
> >> > As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented i
warpspasm:
> Wietse Venema wrote
> > warpspasm:
> >> Wietse Venema wrote
> >> > warpspasm:
> >> >> Hi Everyone!
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
> >> >> address
> >> >
> >> > As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
Wietse Venema wrote
> warpspasm:
>> Wietse Venema wrote
>> > warpspasm:
>> >> Hi Everyone!
>> >>
>> >> I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
>> >> address
>> >
>> > As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
>> >
>> >> Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx
On 09/01/2013 08:47 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> But these emails ultimately do get sent out. It could take a long time.
> To me it sounds odd that they don't know their DNS lookups are screwed
> up. And if they do know, why are they placing such strict constraints
> on incoming mail.
Usually there
Also take a look at the following settings in the postconf docs:
default_destination_recipient_limit
default_destination_concurrency_limit
initial_destination_concurrency
queue_run_delay
Their importance to you (in my opinion) are listed in order, the first
setting I listed is what is most lik
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 11:11:12PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> This problem has just now been reported for the first time, perhaps
> because someone updated GnuTLS to a recent version that exhibits
> this behaviour. I think the right place for the fix is in GnuTLS
> or applications that use i
But these emails ultimately do get sent out. It could take a long time.
To me it sounds odd that they don't know their DNS lookups are screwed
up. And if they do know, why are they placing such strict constraints
on incoming mail.
From: Peter
Sent: 9/1/2013 8:32 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sub
On 9/1/2013 7:28 PM, Warren H. Prince wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Sep 1 23:44:08 production postfix/smtpd[10454]: connect from
>>> localhost[127.0.0.1]
>>
>> SOME OTHER PROGRAM is now injecting mail into postfix. Don't blame
>> postfix.
>>
>
> I'm not "blam
Warren H. Prince:
>
> On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> >
> >> Sep 1 23:44:08 production postfix/smtpd[10454]: connect from
> >> localhost[127.0.0.1]
> >
> > SOME OTHER PROGRAM is now injecting mail into postfix. Don't blame
> > postfix.
> >
>
> I'm not "blaming" postfix, but
On 09/02/2013 12:11 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 9/1/2013 6:57 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
>> On every machine, at different locations, I have tried "dig -x ip
>> address" and it works correctly.
>>
>> I have 4 messages stuck in a queue which are complaining about the
>> very thing that works.
>>
>> re
On Sep 1, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> Sep 1 23:44:08 production postfix/smtpd[10454]: connect from
>> localhost[127.0.0.1]
>
> SOME OTHER PROGRAM is now injecting mail into postfix. Don't blame
> postfix.
>
I'm not "blaming" postfix, but postfix is my only source of informatio
On 09/02/2013 12:04 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones
> wrote:
>> If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
>> used, use a separate hostname that points to both A records.
>>
>> mail.example.com A A.A.A.A
>> mail.example.com A B.B.B.B
>
> Won'
On 9/1/2013 7:04 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones wrote:
>> If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
>> used, use a separate hostname that points to both A records.
>>
>> mail.example.com A A.A.A.A
>> mail.example.com A B.B.B.B
>
> Won't this
You could assume this server will never be used as incoming server.
From: LuKreme
Sent: 9/1/2013 8:05 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org postfix
Subject: Re: HELO
On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones wrote:
> If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
> used, use a separate ho
On 9/1/2013 6:57 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> On every machine, at different locations, I have tried "dig -x ip
> address" and it works correctly.
>
> I have 4 messages stuck in a queue which are complaining about the
> very thing that works.
>
> refused to talk to me: 451 Sender's ISP has no reve
On 9/1/2013 6:52 PM, Warren H. Prince wrote:
> I didn't want to post such a large log, but here goes. The first line is
> where the message is actually moved to MailDir (it's desired location). The
> entries after that result after the email is moved from Maildir/new to
> Maildir/Cur:
>
>
>
On 01 Sep 2013, at 15:35 , Noel Jones wrote:
> If you want your HELO to be consistent regardless of which IP is
> used, use a separate hostname that points to both A records.
>
> mail.example.com A A.A.A.A
> mail.example.com A B.B.B.B
Won't this cause a problem with the MX records? They will
On every machine, at different locations, I have tried "dig -x ip
address" and it works correctly.
I have 4 messages stuck in a queue which are complaining about the
very thing that works.
refused to talk to me: 451 Sender's ISP has no reverse DNS for ip address
Can somebody tell me what is goi
I didn't want to post such a large log, but here goes. The first line is where
the message is actually moved to MailDir (it's desired location). The entries
after that result after the email is moved from Maildir/new to Maildir/Cur:
Sep 1 23:44:07 production postfix/local[10458]: 0352A760851
So, I checked the destination email address and I found this
n...@none.com. I guess it becomes pretty obvious, now, why this
mailbox is busy. BTW... there was only one attempt to send to this
destination.
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 04:12:28P
I didn't want to post it due to it's length, but here goes:
On Sep 1, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Warren H. Prince:
>> My problem is that after mailman grabs the email, some postfix
>> process kicks off that attempts to communicate with the original
>> mail server that sent the
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 04:12:28PM -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> host ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com[74.125.136.27] said: 450-4.2.1 The user
> you are trying to contact is receiving mail at a rate that 450-4.2.1
> prevents additional messages from being delivered
The user is receiving too much mail, the
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 07:02:00PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I will keep my anaswer short.
>
> First, the primary mission of Postfix is to deliver mail, not to
> force someone into adopting a particular world view. I have asked
> Viktor what patch would restore interoperability.
>
> Second,
I will keep my anaswer short.
First, the primary mission of Postfix is to deliver mail, not to
force someone into adopting a particular world view. I have asked
Viktor what patch would restore interoperability.
Second, we have to be mindful that Postfix and Exim are not the
only MTAs in existence
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Folks, sorry this isn't threading: I subscribed to this list to post
after being pointed by Viktor at:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2013-09/0003.html
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2013-09/0015.html
For inte
On 9/1/2013 3:20 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> I am not sure I understand this. Isn't every message a separate connection?
>
> If what it means to say is I have exceeded a quota for sending out
> emails per time period, what is there to do about it?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
Postfix can reuse a con
On 9/1/2013 3:30 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> My mail server is now bound to a public ip A. The PTR resolves fine
> here. When ISP from public ip A becomes unavailable, the firewall
> over to a different provider. Naturally, the mail server will now be
> bound to a public ip B. What do I do if I
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 04:12:28PM -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> I am getting the message below when trying to send out mail. I
> just wanted to confirm this doesn't have to do with me. Correct
> me if I am wrong, it is the target mailbox gmail is not happy
> about and not me.
>
>
> host ALT2.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 04:30:55PM -0400, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> Subject: HELO
What does HELO have to do with this?
> My mail server is now bound to a public ip A. The PTR resolves
> fine here. When ISP from public ip A becomes unavailable, the
> firewall over to a different provider. Naturall
My mail server is now bound to a public ip A. The PTR resolves fine
here. When ISP from public ip A becomes unavailable, the firewall
over to a different provider. Naturally, the mail server will now be
bound to a public ip B. What do I do if I want correct PTR querry
response?
Thanks in advan
I am not sure I understand this. Isn't every message a separate connection?
If what it means to say is I have exceeded a quota for sending out
emails per time period, what is there to do about it?
Thanks in advance
I am getting the message below when trying to send out mail. I just
wanted to confirm this doesn't have to do with me. Correct me if I am
wrong, it is the target mailbox gmail is not happy about and not me.
host ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.com[74.125.136.27] said: 450-4.2.1 The user
you are trying to c
Le 01/09/2013 21:55, Bruce Markey a écrit :
> Viktor
>
> Thank you. I'm glad I asked before I spent any more time trying to
> make this work.
>
> I'll look at modifying the actual script for now.
>
> Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Bruce Markey wrote:
>
>
Viktor
Thank you. I'm glad I asked before I spent any more time trying to make this
work.
I'll look at modifying the actual script for now.
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Bruce Markey wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping someone on here can maybe point me in the right
On 8/31/2013 6:40 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>
>>
>> When you change your main.cf so that AUTH is not allowed on port 25,
>> then additional settings are required in master.cf/submission to
>> insure you don't reject AUTH users.
>
> Ah... um.. let me see if I have this straight then. I do not have sasl
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Bruce Markey wrote:
> I'm hoping someone on here can maybe point me in the right direction.
>
> I'm trying to simply pipe all incoming email to a perl script that
> then dumps back to postfix to deliver. Pipes in by STDIN and then
> hands it back via ST
I'm hoping someone on here can maybe point me in the right direction.
I'm trying to simply pipe all incoming email to a perl script that then
dumps back to postfix to deliver. Pipes in by STDIN and then hands it
back via STDOUT.
This is the script.
https://grepular.com/Automatically_Encry
warpspasm:
> Wietse Venema wrote
> > warpspasm:
> >> Hi Everyone!
> >>
> >> I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
> >> address
> >
> > As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
> >
> >> Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx postfix/pickup[31603]: A696A34E
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 01:59:38PM +0200, Peer Heinlein wrote:
> For using ECDHE ("perfect forward secrecy") it's necessary to define two
> files with DH-primes:
>
> root@mx2:~# postconf | grep dh_
> smtpd_tls_dh1024_param_file = /etc/postfix/dh_1024.pem
> smtpd_tls_dh512_param_file = /etc/postf
Wietse Venema wrote
> warpspasm:
>> Hi Everyone!
>>
>> I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From:
>> address
>
> As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
>
>> Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx postfix/pickup[31603]: A696A34E481: uid=33
>
> This mail is n
On 01 Sep 2013, at 08:51 , Charles Marcus wrote:
> Everyone else - I'm very curious how many people are relying solely on
> postfix/postcreen settings for their anti-spam measures, and how effective
> they seem to be as compared to other anti-spam measures - ie, using
> outsourced anti-spam S
Warren H. Prince:
> My problem is that after mailman grabs the email, some postfix
> process kicks off that attempts to communicate with the original
> mail server that sent the email. That communication results in a
> forwarding loop and a bounced email warning. I can't seem to
> figure out what
I'm writing a Ruby on Rails app that uses the mailman and fssm gems to monitor
the appropriate Maildir/new. There are virtual mailboxes and subdomains
involved, but nonetheless, Postfix properly delivers incoming mail to the
correct subdirectory. Fssm alerts mailman when a new email is receive
On Sun, 2013-09-01 at 11:09:33 -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
[ .. ]
> Instead, try:
>
> # main.cf
> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/listed_senders, reject
To be clear, this will not help in your test case (but rather, only when
mail is received via smtpd) as Wietse points out.
--
Sahil T
warpspasm:
> Hi Everyone!
>
> I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From: address
As documented reject_unlisted_sender is implemented in the SMTP server.
> Sep 1 08:00:52 xxx postfix/pickup[31603]: A696A34E481: uid=33
This mail is not received via the SMTP server.
Charles Marcus:
> If postfix is good enough now with the addition of postscreen to block
> 95+% of spam, maybe it is time to do away with the hassle of 3rd party
> anti-spam tools.
Important:
1) postscreen decides if the SMTP client is a spammer.
It makes these decisions without receiving ma
On Sun, 2013-09-01 at 07:32:57 -0700, warpspasm wrote:
> I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From: address
> to be used to send email from my mail server. But it is not working, it
> seems to still just be allowing all From: addresses. Here is the output of
> what happened
Hi all,
On 2013-09-01 6:09 AM, Grant wrote:
Thanks James. This is all very cool. A blacklist (zen.spamhaus.org),
a whitelist (list.dnswl.org), and a "greylist". 2.11 looks to be a
fantastic release for easily-configured anti-spam measures. I'm just
not getting spam anymore and I don't think
Hi Everyone!
I would like to use reject_unlisted_sender to allow only one From: address
to be used to send email from my mail server. But it is not working, it
seems to still just be allowing all From: addresses. Here is the output of
what happened:
main.cf
myhostname = xxx.yyy.com
alias_maps =
> Grant:
>> I'm on Gentoo and I use the etc-update script to update config files
>> after upgrading. Should dnsblog be uncommented in a default
>> master.cf? If so I may need to file a Gentoo bug.
>
> As distributed by me, the 'inet' smtpd service is active, and all
> postscreen-related services
Grant:
> I'm on Gentoo and I use the etc-update script to update config files
> after upgrading. Should dnsblog be uncommented in a default
> master.cf? If so I may need to file a Gentoo bug.
As distributed by me, the 'inet' smtpd service is active, and all
postscreen-related services are commen
>> I grep'ed the mail logs for dnsblog and got a huge number of these:
>>
>> [postfix/postscreen] warning: psc_dnsbl_request: connect to
>> private/dnsblog service: No such file or directory
>> >>>
>> >>> Looks as if you've found the problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> Make sure your master.
!-- On Sun 1.Sep'13 at 9:52:50 BST, Grant (emailgr...@gmail.com), wrote:
> I grep'ed the mail logs for dnsblog and got a huge number of these:
>
> [postfix/postscreen] warning: psc_dnsbl_request: connect to
> private/dnsblog service: No such file or directory
> >>>
> >>> Look
I grep'ed the mail logs for dnsblog and got a huge number of these:
[postfix/postscreen] warning: psc_dnsbl_request: connect to
private/dnsblog service: No such file or directory
>>>
>>> Looks as if you've found the problem.
>>>
>>> Make sure your master.cf has an entry like:
>>
57 matches
Mail list logo
