Hi
I cannot get a regex to work in postfix 2.11.1. The regex is designed to
reject Subject lines that have ALL CAPITALS;
/(^Subject: [^a-z]+$)/ REJECT <--not working
Testing the above for '' via command line with:
postmap -q 'Subject: ' regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks
shows its not
this step.
>
> This fixes the specific problem, but I expect that similar fixes
> will be needed with permit_mx_backup and check_mumble_a/ns/mx_access.
> I'll look into those next.
These are all fixed in postfix-2.12-20140924.
Wietse
>
> *** ./src/smtpd/smtpd_c
On 24 Sep 2014, at 11:16 , Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2014-09-23 A. Schulze wrote:
>> I already explicit set 'append_dot_mydomain = no'.
> Same here.
Is there any simple way to test if setting this will break things other than
setting it and watching the logs?
--
The way I see it, the longer
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> You can either post logs and the contents of the transport table,
> or solve the problem yourself based on the information provided.
>
> --
> Viktor.
Using some of you cached replies from 2007, as well. :)
So far it seems to hav
1.0 -0400
***
*** 1292,1301
--- 1292,1313
const char *myname = "reject_unknown_mailhost";
int dns_status;
DNS_RR *dummy;
+ const char *aname;
if (msg_verbose)
msg_info("%s: %s", myname, name);
+ /*
+ *
--On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:41 AM -0400 Wietse Venema
wrote:
If the queue is congested, then separate transports do not help
with mail in the incoming and deferred queues. It is like being
stuck in traffic on the access road to the airport.
With a congested road (congested mail qu
On 9/24/2014 12:52 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael McCallister:
Hello,
I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
to the rela
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:50:35PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
> The logs show that the "to=" field is "root@myhost.mydomain" on the
> server sending mail.
Therefore it seems the transport is not using the local(8) delivery
agent and local aliases(5) don't apply. Proper confirmation requires
logs.
On 9/24/2014 3:21 PM, leam hall wrote:
Am I the only person who has ever worked in a place that won't let you
post logs on a publicly archived internet site?
Probably, since there is absolutely no sane reason for such a thing.
Thank you for wasting everyone's time.
Am 24.09.2014 um 21:50 schrieb leam hall:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>> no, but you are the only person even not trying to anonymize
>> them in a consistent way and not mention that from the very
>> first begin instead ignore repeated aksing for logs
>
> Unders
Hello,
I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
to the relay_transport that results in a bounce being generated by
postfix
Michael McCallister:
> Hello,
>
> I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
> email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
> works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
> to the relay_transport that results in a bo
Am 24.09.2014 um 21:46 schrieb Michael McCallister:
> I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay email
> on to another mail server which hands
> off to the MDA. Everything works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery
> problem when talking to the
> relay_transpor
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> no, but you are the only person even not trying to anonymize
> them in a consistent way and not mention that from the very
> first begin instead ignore repeated aksing for logs
Understood. The issue is that I don't know enough about the
Hello,
I currently use relay_domains and relay_transport as a means to relay
email on to another mail server which hands off to the MDA. Everything
works well. Occasionally there may be a delivery problem when talking
to the relay_transport that results in a bounce being generated by
postfix
Am 24.09.2014 um 21:21 schrieb leam hall:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>> what is so hard about *post every line* of the log
>> related to a specific message instead waste everybodys
>> time?
>
> Am I the only person who has ever worked in a place that won't let
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> what is so hard about *post every line* of the log
> related to a specific message instead waste everybodys
> time?
Am I the only person who has ever worked in a place that won't let you
post logs on a publicly archived internet site?
H
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:07:48PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
> As I said, the "to" field in the mail relay was "root@myserver", not
> my.n...@example.com.
>
> What, exactly, are you looking for?
I thought I mentioned logs...
--
Viktor.
Am 24.09.2014 um 21:07 schrieb leam hall:
> As I said, the "to" field in the mail relay was "root@myserver", not
> my.n...@example.com.
>
> What, exactly, are you looking for?
damned if somebody would know what happens he would
not ask for the logs and if you would understand
what happens you w
As I said, the "to" field in the mail relay was "root@myserver", not
my.n...@example.com.
What, exactly, are you looking for?
Leam
--
Mind on a Mission
Thanks much.
> That looks about right.
>
> Good Practice Note: anchor/narrow your expressions to make them as
> specific as possible to prevent unexpected behavior. This is
> especially important if you intend to discard mail:
> /@client[1-6]\.domain2\.com$/
> /@yahoogroups\.com$/
>
>
> -- No
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:54:58PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
> > The answer is in the logs.
>
> I've run newaliases and reloaded postfix. Here's the config:
> >>>
> >>> The answer is still in the logs.
> >> Odd...
The answer is still in the logs. Post all the LOGS for a queue-id
th
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:51 PM, leam hall wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM, leam hall wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
>>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> The answer is in the logs.
>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:29 PM, leam hall wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
>>
>>> >> Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > The answer is in the logs.
>>>
>>> I've run newaliases and reloaded postfix. Here's the confi
On 9/24/2014 12:49 PM, Michael Fox wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
>> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fox
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:24 AM
>> To: 'postfix users'
>> Subject: RE: header checks for a relay cli
The unionmap is available as of postfix-2.12-20140923.
unionmap:{map1, .., mapN} sends each query to all specified lookup
tables and concatenates all found results, separated by comma.
At its core this does the same thing as Roel's patch, but the user
interface reflects some recent improvements
With:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
[...]
reject_unknown_recipient_domain
[...]
the test fails:
$ nc ::1 25
220 mail.ijs.si ESMTP Postfix
ehlo bla
250-mail.ijs.si
[...]
250 SMTPUTF8
MAIL FROM: SMTPUTF8
250 2.1.0 Ok
RCPT TO:
550 5.1.8 : Sender address
rejected: Domain not found
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >
>> > The answer is in the logs.
>>
>> I've run newaliases and reloaded postfix. Here's the config:
>
> The answer is still in the logs.
>
> --
> Vikto
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:11:25PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > The answer is in the logs.
>
> I've run newaliases and reloaded postfix. Here's the config:
The answer is still in the logs.
--
Viktor.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 01:55:03PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
>> /etc/aliases I have:
>>
>> root:my.m...@example.com
>>
>> If I manually send to my.m...@example.com
On 2014-09-24 13:40, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:58:46PM -0400, Postfix wrote:
As it stands today, the mxrelay box is what every box sends mail to
initially, with local mail being sent to the internal mailhost, and
everything else to an upstream MX box that has connectivit
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 01:55:03PM -0400, leam hall wrote:
> I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
> /etc/aliases I have:
>
> root:my.m...@example.com
>
> If I manually send to my.m...@example.com I get the mail. With the
> alias above if I "mail root" it does
Am 24.09.2014 um 19:55 schrieb leam hall:
> I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
> /etc/aliases I have:
>
> root:my.m...@example.com
>
> If I manually send to my.m...@example.com I get the mail. With the
> alias above if I "mail root" it does not make it.
>
>
I'm trying to send root's mail on a linux box to my regular host. In
/etc/aliases I have:
root:my.m...@example.com
If I manually send to my.m...@example.com I get the mail. With the
alias above if I "mail root" it does not make it.
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Leam
--
Mind on a Mission
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fox
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:24 AM
> To: 'postfix users'
> Subject: RE: header checks for a relay client
>
> > > What you can do is create a restric
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:58:46PM -0400, Postfix wrote:
> As it stands today, the mxrelay box is what every box sends mail to
> initially, with local mail being sent to the internal mailhost, and
> everything else to an upstream MX box that has connectivity (it's third
> party not managed by me)
> > What you can do is create a restriction class to check the sender
> > and the recipient, and reject the message if both match. The
> > general procedure is outlined here, with some examples similar to
> > what you're asking:
> > http://www.postfix.org/RESTRICTION_CLASS_README.html
I don't see
On 2014-09-23 A. Schulze wrote:
> wietse:
>> Dammit, I want to hear from people who expect to have problems
>> or not.
>
> OK, I don't expect problems for /my/ systems
> because I already explicit set 'append_dot_mydomain = no'.
Same here.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"Abstractions save us time w
> On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:57 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>
> Am 24.09.2014 um 18:45 schrieb LuKreme:
>> Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
>> argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
>>
>> 1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
>
> not pe
On 2014-09-24 10:38, Noel Jones wrote:
On 9/24/2014 9:12 AM, Postfix wrote:
I've got a handful of postfix servers in various subdomains of a
private TLD. What I'm ultimately looking to do is rewrite anything
going through the gateway box to a specific catch-all user of a
legitimate domain, so a
Am 24.09.2014 um 18:45 schrieb LuKreme:
> Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
> argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
>
> 1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
not per user but per client IP
anvil_rate_time_unit = 1800s
smtpd_client_c
Hello,
You should have a look at this postfix policy server : http://postfwd.org
Le 24 sept. 2014 18:46, "LuKreme" a écrit :
> Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
> argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
>
> 1) maximum 100 mails in x
LuKreme:
> Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
> argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
>
> 1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
> 2) maximum 1000 mails per day
> 3) maximum X MB output per day
> 4) exclude some users (for example, mailm
On 24.09.2014, at 15:06, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
> We already have two production mail servers, vmail1 and vmail2, running
> postfix/dovecot (with virtual users on LDAP), each running on a separate data
> center.
Same here, called mx1 and mx2.
> vmail1 is the main one (i.e. the one used to send
Not sure if this is even a postfix question, but let's say for the sake of
argument I want to set the following limits for user accounts:
1) maximum 100 mails in x minutes
2) maximum 1000 mails per day
3) maximum X MB output per day
4) exclude some users (for example, mailman)
Where do I start?
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:37:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> > > We've had one request so far for RFC 6710 support with Zimbra. Just
> > > curious if there are any plans on the table for implementation of this
> > > RFC
> > > within Postfix for
On 9/24/2014 9:12 AM, Postfix wrote:
> I've got a handful of postfix servers in various subdomains of a
> private TLD. What I'm ultimately looking to do is rewrite anything
> going through the gateway box to a specific catch-all user of a
> legitimate domain, so at least I can deal with bounces an
Thanks for the first-hand input, both on- and off-list. The responses
show that there is a massive problem with what Rumsfeld called the
"unknown unknowns".
That is, except for those who have total control over their clients,
people generally have no idea what legacy systems might be sending
inc
I've got a handful of postfix servers in various subdomains of a private
TLD. What I'm ultimately looking to do is rewrite anything going
through the gateway box to a specific catch-all user of a legitimate
domain, so at least I can deal with bounces and the sort.
Starting: joeuser@somemachin
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:21:07AM +0200, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
> Thank You Noel, the big "a=63191" can be caused by retries ?
Yes, time in the deferred queue is included in pre-active delay in
subsequent delivery attempts. Had you searched your logs for the
full history of the queue-id, you wou
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:37:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> > We've had one request so far for RFC 6710 support with Zimbra. Just
> > curious if there are any plans on the table for implementation of this RFC
> > within Postfix for 2.12 (or later).
>
> Postfix has n
Am 24.09.2014 um 15:06 schrieb Nikolaos Milas:
> Hello,
>
> In the past I have discussed some failover options for incoming mail.
>
> Now, I would appreciate your advice on outgoing mail (and POP3/IMAP
> mailbox access) in building a mail service with redundancy.
>
> We already have two producti
Hello,
In the past I have discussed some failover options for incoming mail.
Now, I would appreciate your advice on outgoing mail (and POP3/IMAP
mailbox access) in building a mail service with redundancy.
We already have two production mail servers, vmail1 and vmail2, running
postfix/dovecot
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> We've had one request so far for RFC 6710 support with Zimbra. Just
> curious if there are any plans on the table for implementation of this RFC
> within Postfix for 2.12 (or later).
Postfix has no priorities. If you want to schedule different classes
of mail independentl
Am 24.09.2014 um 02:42 schrieb Peter:
> On 09/24/2014 08:12 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> if a message is detected as spam and don't have the score
>> for reject SA adds [SPAM] as subject prefix
>>
>> well, i would like to deliver that messages unchanged but send a
>> copy to a special, full qual
Hello,
Thank You Noel, the big "a=63191" can be caused by retries ?
Best regards.
Francis
On 09/23/2014 04:09 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
On 9/23/2014 6:56 AM, Francis SOUYRI wrote:
Hello Peter,
Thank you for your reply, I thought this is multiple messages in a
single connection, but greater than
* Wietse Venema :
> - Some distributions already ship with "append_dot_mydomain = no".
> This is an opportunity to eliminate the inconsistency.
This will probably break mail setups that used to rely on unqualified
names in a way that's hard to diagnose, especially if there is
a namespace clash w
57 matches
Mail list logo
