Thanks Victor. This is exactly what I was looking for.
Thanks Noel: yes, I messed up and wrote the wrong parameter. Yes,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain is what I meant. But thanks for the
additional details.
Thanks li...@rhsoft.net: I didn't make it clear that I was referring to
outgoing, n
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:29:42PM +0100, Per Thorsheim wrote:
> Thomas Ptacek doesn't like DNSSEC
> http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/ & followup
> http://sockpuppet.org/stuff/dnssec-qa.html, and ImperialViolet has some
> opinions as well https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/
My apologies for top-posting here, but I’m going to ask for something related
to this thread…
I’ve subscribed to this list for some time, and it’s full of good information,
including things that don’t really have anything to do with Postfix. I’m fine
with that, but these threads do sometimes g
Am 19.01.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Per Thorsheim:
Viktor;
Thomas Ptacek doesn't like DNSSEC
http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/ & followup
http://sockpuppet.org/stuff/dnssec-qa.html, and ImperialViolet has some
opinions as well https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.htm
Viktor;
Thomas Ptacek doesn't like DNSSEC
http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/ & followup
http://sockpuppet.org/stuff/dnssec-qa.html, and ImperialViolet has some
opinions as well https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.html
I understand I have lots and lots to read here
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 03:53:27PM -0500, John wrote:
> Is there any sort of work around, other than setting policy to none?
I neither publish nor query SPF, DKIM or DMARC. I may have to
relent on not publishing DKIM at some point, as apparently some
large IPv6 receiving sites seem to demand tha
On Mon, January 19, 2015 15:53, John wrote:
>>> If you have people posting though mailing lists then it is likely
>>> best
>>> that you leave DMARC policy set to none or possibly quarantine.
>>> Reject is probably too severe to seriously consider for some time
>>> yet;
>>> Yahoo, AOL et al. positi
If you have people posting though mailing lists then it is likely best
that you leave DMARC policy set to none or possibly quarantine.
Reject is probably too severe to seriously consider for some time yet;
Yahoo, AOL et al. positions on the matter notwithstanding. Be aware
that Google will delive
If you have people posting though mailing lists then it is likely best
that you leave DMARC policy set to none or possibly quarantine.
Reject is probably too severe to seriously consider for some time yet;
Yahoo, AOL et al. positions on the matter notwithstanding. Be aware
that Google will delive
On 1/19/2015 2:12 PM, Michael Fox wrote:
> I have a question about the situation where postfix receives a
> connection from a client trying to send to an invalid recipient
> address such as u...@nohow.noway.org.
>
>
>
> Currently, postfix responds with:
>
>
>
> 450 4.1.2 : Recipient address
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:12:34PM -0800, Michael Fox wrote:
> 450 4.1.2 : Recipient address rejected: Domain not found
Turn off the default safety net, I have:
unknown_address_reject_code = 550
unknown_client_reject_code = 550
unknown_hostname_reject_code = 550
unverified_recipi
Am 19.01.2015 um 21:12 schrieb Michael Fox:
I have a question about the situation where postfix receives a
connection from a client trying to send to an invalid recipient address
such as u...@nohow.noway.org.
Currently, postfix responds with:
450 4.1.2 : Recipient address rejected: Domain not
I have a question about the situation where postfix receives a connection
from a client trying to send to an invalid recipient address such as
u...@nohow.noway.org.
Currently, postfix responds with:
450 4.1.2 : Recipient address rejected: Domain not
found
What seems reasonable to me is
On 2015-01-19 13:32, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
[sendmail -f]
This solved the issue.
As you can see it was under your nose all the time but you were
too busy insulting us:
Postfix has hundreds of parameters and dozens of comand-line options.
Figuring which of these was i
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:41:37AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I wonder to know if it is possible in case of dropping oversize bounced
> > message, include a few first bytes of the original message in the bounce
> > report.
>
> 10+ Years ago Postfix sent the first N bytes, but that was causin
Payam Poursaied:
> Hi All
> As I learned, setting bounce_size_limit=X, will drop original message of
> size X and more from bounce report.
> I wonder to know if it is possible in case of dropping oversize bounced
> message, include a few first bytes of the original message in the bounce
> report.
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
[sendmail -f]
> This solved the issue.
> As you can see it was under your nose all the time but you were
> too busy insulting us:
Postfix has hundreds of parameters and dozens of comand-line options.
Figuring which of these was in error was non-trivial, especially
with someon
robin.wakefi...@ubs.com:
> From what I can see in our logs, the transgressions that are logged
> only related to the worst offender in that time slot. If that is
> the case, is there a way to read the other offenders, i.e. to read
> a complete list of connection counts, etc. for other clients that
Am 19.01.2015 um 11:49 schrieb Michael Ströder:
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
and the header is still there.
By default, Postfix REMOVES Return-Path headers from email messages.
The default setting is:
message_drop_headers = bcc, content-length, rese
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> m...@ruggedinbox.com:
>> and the header is still there.
>
> By default, Postfix REMOVES Return-Path headers from email messages.
> The default setting is:
>
> message_drop_headers = bcc, content-length, resent-bcc, return-path
From http://www.pos
On 2015-01-19 01:36, wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
m...@ruggedinbox.com:
Perhaps we could pass ${sender} to our custom script
and then use sendmail's -f argument to change the Return-Path header ?
The -f argument IS THE RETURN-PATH ADDRESS.
SENDMAIL(1)
>From what I can see in our logs, the transgressions that are logged only
>related to the worst offender in that time slot. If that is the case, is
>there a way to read the other offenders, i.e. to read a complete list of
>connection counts, etc. for other clients that are exceeding the limits.
James,
that sounds like you should write an I-D "DMARC considered harmful". ;-)
Ciao, Michael.
James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Sun, January 18, 2015 20:14, John wrote:
>> I am not sure about implementing DMARC on my servers.
>> However, is it worth adding a DMARC record to the DNS? What, if
>> any
Thanks for everyone's help on this.
I have stunnel working now and I look forward to getting the official
Postfix from RHEL (or perhaps CentOS - whatever ClearOS decides to use
as a base distro) some time in the future.
Nick
On 2015-01-19 04:29, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 a
James B. Byrne wrote
> What are the contents of your /etc/resolv.conf? Are any of the listed
> resolvers down?
nameserver xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
nameserver xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
domain mydomain.com
I doubt it as mail is flowing and RBL lookups are working fine.
--
View this message in context:
http://pos
25 matches
Mail list logo
