micah anderson:
> What happens now when someone builds without TLS support and then
> enables some TLS option? It seems like the same thing should happen
> here.
I don't care what happens now. I want to avoid sending plaintext
mail when Postfix is configured to require TLS, and someone forgets
to
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> If there are no objections, I can change the default to "may" when
>> TLS is compiled in.
>
> Unrelated but related, what should happen when someone unwittingly
> builds Postfix without TLS support, and Postfix configuration a)
> enable
Wietse Venema writes:
> Viktor Dukhovni:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>> > > So the real question is whether there is a non-trivial community
>> > > of users who:
>> > >
>> > > * Have no explit "smtp_tls_security_level" setting in their main.cf
>> > >
Viktor Dukhovni writes:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> > So the real question is whether there is a non-trivial community
>> > of users who:
>> >
>> > * Have no explit "smtp_tls_security_level" setting in their main.cf
>> > file.
>> >
>> > * Woul
Stefan Bauer:
> the threshold is at default, so 1.
>
> but the dns timeout, Wietse mentioned, might be the real cause. gonna check
> manuals, if this is configurable.
postscreen will wait for DNS lookup results until the postscreen_greet_wait
timer expires.
postscreen_greet_wait = ${stress?{
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> > > So the real question is whether there is a non-trivial community
> > > of users who:
> > >
> > > * Have no explit "smtp_tls_security_level" setting in their main.cf
> > > file.
> > >
> > > * Would
the threshold is at default, so 1.
but the dns timeout, Wietse mentioned, might be the real cause. gonna check
manuals, if this is configurable.
Thank you.
Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2018 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni <
postfix-us...@dukhovni.org>:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:00:34PM +0100, Stefan Bau
> On Dec 19, 2018, at 1:51 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> I'm definitely in favor of it being enabled by default, but, in addition to
> being busy, I've been trying to work towards less deviation from upstream in
> Debian vice more. There is already plenty that is well baked into our
> ecosys
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > So the real question is whether there is a non-trivial community
> > of users who:
> >
> > * Have no explit "smtp_tls_security_level" setting in their main.cf
> > file.
> >
> > * Would not mind to see TLS turned on as a
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 01:27:42 PM Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:54:01PM -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> > >> This is easy enough to implement, the only complication is
> > >> that the documentation would need to explain the variable
> > >> default.
> > >>
> > >>> If
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:54:01PM -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> >> This is easy enough to implement, the only complication is
> >> that the documentation would need to explain the variable
> >> default.
> >>
> >>> If it is compiled without TLS, the default should be 'no'.
> >>
> >> This is certa
Of course, but whenever I force the message using postqueue -i the message was
delivered nicely. Is there a way to see in the log when postfix tries to send
to sendgird, which user and pass are called? I think maybe the user are wrong
when they try to send in the queue, but when the message is f
micah writes:
> Viktor Dukhovni writes:
>
>>> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:08 PM, micah wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any reason why postfix, when compiled with TLS, can simply set
>>> the default to 'may'?
>>
>> This is easy enough to implement, the only complication is
>> that the documentation would need
Luis Miguel Flores dos Santos:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ]
> Hi I'm using Sender-Dependent SASL authentication and sending to sendgrid but
> afters a few days we have this errors for all clients:
>
> Dec 19 14:35:44 UBMSASENDWEB01 postfix/error[16038]: 4631114A2E3:
> to=, relay=none, del
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:00:34PM +0100, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> Dec 19 13:04:36 mx1 postfix/postscreen[4770]: CONNECT from
> [209.85.166.196]:52168 to [public-ip]:25
> Dec 19 13:04:42 mx1 postfix/dnsblog[4774]: addr 209.85.166.196 listed by
> domain dnsbl.sorbs.net as 127.0.0.6
> Dec 19 13:04:42 m
Hi I'm using Sender-Dependent SASL authentication and sending to sendgrid but
afters a few days we have this errors for all clients:
Dec 19 14:35:44 UBMSASENDWEB01 postfix/error[16038]: 4631114A2E3:
to=, relay=none, delay=579, delays=569/9.3/0/0.06,
dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporar
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:58:00PM +, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> This might help OP identify any non-default postscreen settings (kudos:
> Viktor) -
>
> LC_ALL=C join --check-order <(postconf -n) <(postconf -d | sed
> 's/=/(default:/; s/$/)/')|grep ^postscreen_
Thanks, but may be worth noting t
Stefan Bauer:
> Hi,
>
> Dec 19 13:04:36 mx1 postfix/postscreen[4770]: CONNECT from
> [209.85.166.196]:52168 to [public-ip]:25
> Dec 19 13:04:42 mx1 postfix/dnsblog[4774]: addr 209.85.166.196 listed by
> domain dnsbl.sorbs.net as 127.0.0.6
It took 6s for dnsblog to figure out that the client is li
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 14:51, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 19.12.18 14:00, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> >Dec 19 13:04:36 mx1 postfix/postscreen[4770]: CONNECT from
> >[209.85.166.196]:52168 to [public-ip]:25
> >Dec 19 13:04:42 mx1 postfix/dnsblog[4774]: addr 209.85.166.196 listed by
> >domain dnsb
On 19.12.18 14:00, Stefan Bauer wrote:
Dec 19 13:04:36 mx1 postfix/postscreen[4770]: CONNECT from
[209.85.166.196]:52168 to [public-ip]:25
Dec 19 13:04:42 mx1 postfix/dnsblog[4774]: addr 209.85.166.196 listed by
domain dnsbl.sorbs.net as 127.0.0.6
Dec 19 13:04:42 mx1 postfix/postscreen[4770]: PAS
Hi, I don’t know the answer to your question but from this site
http://www.sorbs.net/using.shtml
it looks like the IP 209.85.166.196 seems to have tripped one of these :
new.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net127.0.0.6
recent.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net127.0.0.6
old.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net127.0.0.6
Hai,
recent.spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net = 127.0.0.6
and you gave it 1 point.
whats the postscreen_dnsbl_threshold set at ?
I'll bet thats set higher than 1.
Greetz,
Louis
Van: cubew...@googlemail.com [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
Namens Ste
Hi,
Dec 19 13:04:36 mx1 postfix/postscreen[4770]: CONNECT from
[209.85.166.196]:52168 to [public-ip]:25
Dec 19 13:04:42 mx1 postfix/dnsblog[4774]: addr 209.85.166.196 listed by
domain dnsbl.sorbs.net as 127.0.0.6
Dec 19 13:04:42 mx1 postfix/postscreen[4770]: PASS NEW
[209.85.166.196]:52168
Dec 19
23 matches
Mail list logo
