Wietse Venema writes:
> That would be overkill. I had thought something like:
> - The first map returns a result;
> - The second maps splits this result by newline or comma, does a lookup for
> each of the keys, concats this back together, and passes it on as the new
> result.
That would break
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:43:49PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Should it be "split on comma", or "parse as a list of addresses"?
>
> apipemap, then?
Sure, a pipeline of 1-to-n address mappings.
> Yes, the external/internal address form is a pain.
> The lookup keys should be in internal form
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:46:43PM +0200, giacomo wrote:
> > So you're using Cyrus SASL, but not showing any details of the SASL
> > configuration, available plugins, ...
> >
>
> The configuration of SASL is in /usr/local/lib/sasl2/smtpd.conf
>
> pwcheck_method: saslauthd
> mech_list: PLAIN LO
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:19:58PM +0200, Sean Durkin wrote:
> > For at least one such session, post all related messages from the
> > "postfix/smtpd[pid]" that occur between "connect from" and
> > "disconnect from".
> Here's one: http://pastebin.com/twb3Z8Eg
This trace has an insane level of d
Thank you for your reply.
On 08.09.14, 21:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:47:02PM +0200, giacomo wrote:
>
> > I send you the configuration of Postfix.
>
> Change the password for this account:
>
> Username: d.lis...@gruppoisil.com
> Compromised Password: lisaia
Sean Durkin:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
> Hi Viktor,
>
> Am 10.09.2014 um 16:19 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> > Have you tried disabling TCP window scaling? It might be confusing
> > some middle-box (firewall, NAT device, ...) on path between the
> > remote systems and your MTA.
> I wou
On 9/10/2014 2:01 PM, M. Rodrigo Monteiro wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm running Postfix 2.11.1.
>
> I have amavisd-new as content filter (content_filter =
> amavisfeed:[127.0.0.1]:10024).
> I want to bypass this check (amavisd-new) for some recipient (mail
> to). It's for recipient, not for sender (mail f
Hi Viktor,
Am 10.09.2014 um 16:19 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> Have you tried disabling TCP window scaling? It might be confusing
> some middle-box (firewall, NAT device, ...) on path between the
> remote systems and your MTA.
I would not have thought of that... I've tried that now, but it does n
Hi!
I'm running Postfix 2.11.1.
I have amavisd-new as content filter (content_filter =
amavisfeed:[127.0.0.1]:10024).
I want to bypass this check (amavisd-new) for some recipient (mail
to). It's for recipient, not for sender (mail from).
How can I accomplish that? Using smtpd_recipient_restricti
Wietse:
> Tricks with MX-priority spamtraps share the problem that they make
> assumptions about the behavior of all legitimate MTAs.
> For a related approach, see, for example, "nolisting".
Daniel Miller:
> Do I infer from that MX-priority spamtraps are a Bad Idea - at least in
> the real world?
That's helpful. Thanks.
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Viktor Dukhovni
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:11 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Restricting relay of attachments
>
>
--On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:56 PM + Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
While the above might be seen as an attempt to dissuade you from
looking into this further, the goal is to get past any magical
"wouldn't it be nice if" thinking and find out whether people really
understand what it is the
btb:
> hi-
>
> i have a mail submission server [submission/587 only] [msa.example.com]
> for our users [config below]. in that context, it's working as desired.
> we also have another, separate, msa [msa.systems.example.com], which
> servers and other infrastructure devices use for submittin
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:55:47AM -0700, Daniel Miller wrote:
> Temporarily at least I'll drop the secondaries from my DNS and see if it
> helps - but I still think there's something broken on their end. I just
> don't know how to express it properly beyond, "it's wrong, and it's on your
> end".
On 9/10/2014 10:35 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Daniel Miller:
This question is actually two questions - neither of which are
Postfix-specific but email-generic - but this list is the best resource
I have to ask such questions.
First - I've been contributing to "Project Tarbaby", which means I have
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:38:49AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Interestingly enough, there does seem to be a number of hosts using TLS when
> communicating with smtpd, including sites such as google, cloud9, yahoo,
> hotmail, dropbox, linkedin, etc. We have 2,253 (non unique domain)
> con
On 9/10/2014 10:24 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
If your system ever responds with a 4XX, retries will hit the
secondaries. You need to at least exclude clients that first tried the
primary and tempfailed. However, transient connection or DNS problems
can also cause a legitimate client to skip the
Hi Robert,
Am 10.09.2014 um 10:11 schrieb Robert Schetterer:
> Am 10.09.2014 um 09:56 schrieb Sean Durkin:
>> The first question is:
>> Can I rule out it's my fault?
>
> have you changed anything last days/month upgrades/updates software
> hardware ?
Hardware is unchanged.
The Ubuntu postfix pa
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:18:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Instead of changing the syntax we could use a different name and
> > call it pipemaps or spipemap (like pipemap, but split on ',').
>
> Should it be "split on comma", or "parse as a list of addresses"?
apipem
--On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 9:02 AM +0200 Stefan Foerster
wrote:
* Wietse Venema :
Viktor Dukhovni:
> Which works just fine with a single certificate, because TLS in
> SMTP in generally unauthenticated. If all the various domains
> share the same MX hostnames, many implementations that
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:18:22PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Instead of changing the syntax we could use a different name and
> call it pipemaps or spipemap (like pipemap, but split on ',').
Should it be "split on comma", or "parse as a list of addresses"?
The latter is perhaps more correct i
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:28:17PM -0400, CSS wrote:
> In the interest of efficiency and making sure I?m actually doing
> this correctly, is there any other option (especially with qmail,
> and on the same host) to inject the mail into qmail? smtp to smtp
> > works, and I think I have my user/ali
Daniel Miller:
> This question is actually two questions - neither of which are
> Postfix-specific but email-generic - but this list is the best resource
> I have to ask such questions.
>
> First - I've been contributing to "Project Tarbaby", which means I have
> a pair of secondary MX records
hi-
i have a mail submission server [submission/587 only] [msa.example.com]
for our users [config below]. in that context, it's working as desired.
we also have another, separate, msa [msa.systems.example.com], which
servers and other infrastructure devices use for submitting mail. how
can
Hello,
I know it’s fairly common for people to use postfix as a spam-eating/tagging
gateway in environments where Exchange or some other MTA is mandatory. In my
case, I’m fronting an old qmail/vpopmail setup which is probably never going to
go away. Right now I have basic transport rules that
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:02:30AM -0700, Daniel Miller wrote:
> This question is actually two questions - neither of which are
> Postfix-specific but email-generic - but this list is the best resource I
> have to ask such questions.
>
> First - I've been contributing to "Project Tarbaby", which
Roel van Meer:
> That would be overkill. I had thought something like:
> - The first map returns a result;
> - The second maps splits this result by newline or comma, does a lookup for
> each of the keys, concats this back together, and passes it on as the new
> result.
>
> I can imagine that
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:55:16AM -0700, Michael Fox wrote:
> Hmmm. O.K. Thanks to both of you. It will take me some time to think this
> through.
>
> The level of indirection between main.cf and master.cf sure adds
> flexibility. But, as someone who doesn't work in postfix every day or even
This question is actually two questions - neither of which are
Postfix-specific but email-generic - but this list is the best resource
I have to ask such questions.
First - I've been contributing to "Project Tarbaby", which means I have
a pair of secondary MX records below my primary which acc
Hmmm. O.K. Thanks to both of you. It will take me some time to think this
through.
The level of indirection between main.cf and master.cf sure adds
flexibility. But, as someone who doesn't work in postfix every day or even
every week, it also leaves my head spinning. ;-)
Thanks again.
Michae
Am 10.09.2014 um 16:10 schrieb Markus Benning:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:30:03AM +0200, Markus Benning wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:52:38PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>>> But it's not too hard to make such a feature with either a policy
>>> service (eg. postfwd) or a log scraper (eg. fail2
Wietse Venema writes:
> > Would it be difficult to extend the pipemap functionality so it does a
> > lookup in the second map for each of the results produced by the first
> > map?
>
> Unfortunately, yes. The Postfix dictionary abstraction is a simple
> key->value service, and has no notion of
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:51:31PM +0200, Roel van Meer wrote:
>
> > Would it be difficult to extend the pipemap functionality so it does a
> > lookup in the second map for each of the results produced by the first map?
>
> Unfortunately, yes. The Postfix dictionary abstractio
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:51:31PM +0200, Roel van Meer wrote:
> Would it be difficult to extend the pipemap functionality so it does a
> lookup in the second map for each of the results produced by the first map?
Unfortunately, yes. The Postfix dictionary abstraction is a simple
key->value serv
Hi everyone,
I have a question about the new pipemap functionality that is in the 2.12
experimental release.
If I chain two lookup tables, and the first produces multiple results, it
seems the lookup in the second table is done with all of the results at once.
That means that the pipemap
Konstantin:
> Hi,
>
> We need to send a lot of raw eml files.
> I decided to use sendmail as a solution for this process.
>
> We have approx 6000 files in "maildrop" queue, messages are going out from
> maildrop but i would like to speed up this process.
>
> I wonder is there any configuration o
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:56:48AM +0200, Sean Durkin wrote:
> Some of my users were complaining about losing incoming mail,
> namely Amazon shipping notifications, newsletters and such things
> that they were absolutely sure were sent out, but never reached
> their inbox. After doing some digging
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:30:03AM +0200, Markus Benning wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:52:38PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> > But it's not too hard to make such a feature with either a policy
> > service (eg. postfwd) or a log scraper (eg. fail2ban or just a shell
> > script) to update a blackl
Hi,
We need to send a lot of raw eml files.
I decided to use sendmail as a solution for this process.
We have approx 6000 files in "maildrop" queue, messages are going out from
maildrop but i would like to speed up this process.
I wonder is there any configuration option in postfix to control ma
On 9/10/2014 1:24 AM, Michael Fox wrote:
> I'd like to restrict/deny (5xx permanent error) incoming messages
> from the Internet to client.domain2.com if they contain
> attachments. But no such restriction should be applied to other
> clients or to users on relay.domain1.com.
Noel Jones:
> Header
On 9/10/2014 1:24 AM, Michael Fox wrote:
> Sorry if this is a bit simple, but I can’t seem to figure out how
> the components fit together.
>
>
>
> Given the following:
>
> 1) MX/Relay machine running postfix: relay.domain1.com
>
> 2) Client machine: client.domain2.com
>
>
>
> I’d lik
LuKreme:
> I had a user account on my system many years ago (like 12) that
> continues to get many email attempts. Is it possible to add servers
> trying to send to this address to a blacklist.
The mail is rejected before Postfix accepts the DATA command.
If you must, you can configure an access m
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:52:38PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> But it's not too hard to make such a feature with either a policy
> service (eg. postfwd) or a log scraper (eg. fail2ban or just a shell
> script) to update a blacklist file.
I'm currently setting up an project for a policy daemon at
h
Am 10.09.2014 um 09:56 schrieb Sean Durkin:
> The first question is:
> Can I rule out it's my fault?
have you changed anything last days/month upgrades/updates software
hardware ?
please send you postfix config , search list archive "lost connection
after DATA"
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schetter
Hello,
some of my users were complaining about losing incoming mail, namely Amazon
shipping notifications, newsletters and such things that they were absolutely
sure were sent out, but never reached their inbox. After doing some digging,
increasing log verbosity and such, I found a lot of this:
45 matches
Mail list logo
