On 10/04/23 16:52, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
The default_action here actually defines what action postfix will take
if the policyd errors out (e.g. not running). By default this is "451
4.3.5 Server configuration problem" which results in a deferral, so it
would not cause the message to
On April 10, 2023 4:52:04 AM UTC, tom--- via Postfix-users
wrote:
>On 2023-04-10 12:39, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
>> On 10/04/23 14:21, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
>>> I have resolved the issue by:
>>>
>>> 1. install unbound as dns resolver locally
>>
>> This is good.
>>
>>> 2. chan
On 2023-04-10 12:39, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 10/04/23 14:21, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I have resolved the issue by:
1. install unbound as dns resolver locally
This is good.
2. change this statement:
check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf,
to this one:
chec
On 10/04/23 14:21, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I have resolved the issue by:
1. install unbound as dns resolver locally
This is good.
2. change this statement:
check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf,
to this one:
check_policy_service { unix:private/policyd-spf,
default
>If you were fully equipped to know what's relevant
Again, I'm sorry if anything I wrote was hurtful or otherwise unpleasant:
not at all what I wanted to express. I have no complaints at all, for any
reason. I used Postfix for so many years now: I'm so totally grateful for
your effort. Why thi
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:22:24AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> > My comiserations...
>
> Do you mean systemd-resolve is a bad choice for local resolver?
Wow, you read my mind! :-)
The only use-case I can think of for systemd-resolved is on mobile
devices, or home networks, where au
On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 10:29:46PM -0400, François wrote:
> I did post the relevant parts (I believe) of main.cf:
If you were fully equipped to know what's relevant, you'd not need to
look for help here. When you do seek help here, you need to be willing
to let others judge what is relevant.
--
Fran?ois via Postfix-users:
> I'm sorry if any part of my request seemed disagreeable: not my intention.
>
> I did post the relevant parts (I believe) of main.cf:
>
> canonical_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/canonical
> canonical_classes = envelope_sender
You failed to post "postconf -n" output as r
I'm sorry if any part of my request seemed disagreeable: not my intention.
I did post the relevant parts (I believe) of main.cf:
canonical_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/canonical
canonical_classes = envelope_sender
I don't see a mistake in those lines (this affirmation could be in itself a
mistake,
On 2023-04-10 09:30, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 09:14:19AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users
wrote:
I have two debian boxes, one is running unbound for dns resolver,
Congratulations on a sound choice.
another is running systemd-resolve.
My comiserations.
On 2023-04-09 10:02, t...@myposts.ovh wrote:
I have this setting in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject_rbl_cli
On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 08:08:04PM -0400, François via Postfix-users wrote:
> The regexp:/etc/postfix/canonical just did not want to map reliably a
> domain name to a certain Return-Path, even though I tested successfully all
> regular expressions with (for example):
>
> postmap -q "info[at]ghi.c
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 09:14:19AM +0800, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> I have two debian boxes, one is running unbound for dns resolver,
Congratulations on a sound choice.
> another is running systemd-resolve.
My comiserations...
--
Viktor.
___
Hello
I have two debian boxes, one is running unbound for dns resolver,
another is running systemd-resolve.
As you see the first,
udp0 0 127.0.0.1:530.0.0.0:*
290152/unbound
The second,
udp0 0 127.0.0.53:53 0.0.0.0
I tried your inline solution: it worked as expected. I saw the mapping
happen between postfix/pickup and postfix/qmgr
I finally could get the canonical mapping to change the Return-Path (and
the Return-Path only: the From and Reply-To must be left as they are). The
only way I found: list ALL sen
On 9/04/23 23:02, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 9/04/23 21:23, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I am using the policyd-spf by default configuration (never changed a
line), and this is the doc:
https://manpages.debian.org/testing/postfix-policyd-spf-python/policyd-spf.conf.5.en.html
But the
Fran?ois via Postfix-users:
> >Envelope from? Header from?
>
> I just don't know. I tried to find the info but could not. My best guess:
> header from.
It sets both.
With a very simple canonical map
main.cf:
canonical_maps = inline:{{f...@porcupine.org = b...@porcupine.org}}
Command:
>Envelope from? Header from?
I just don't know. I tried to find the info but could not. My best guess:
header from.
I'm starting to think what I asked is not possible (at least using
canonical mapping):
Return-Path: whatever or nothing
From: whatever[at]ghi.com
Changed to:
Return-Path: addre
Fran?ois via Postfix-users:
> mail program links to mailx. mailx man page says:
>
> -r address
> Sets the From address. Overrides any from variable specified
Envelope from? Header from?
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- po
>How do you specify the test message envelope sender addresses?
I just use:
date | mail -s "$(date)" -r 'whatever[at]ghi.com' someone[at]somedomain.com
mail program links to mailx. mailx man page says:
-r address
Sets the From address. Overrides any from variable specified
in env
How do you specify the test message envelope sender addresses? You
can't put them in a message header (From:, Return-Path:, etc.).
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-l
REPOST
Sorry, all email addresses in my last post were garbled
Please ignore my last post
Hi,
To channel bounce reports to multiple sender domains I control to
specific addres
Hi,
To channel bounce reports to multiple sender domains I control to
specific addresses for analysis I used:
In main.cf:
canonical_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/canonical
canonical_classes = envelope_sender
In canonical:
/@abc\.com/ addres...@whereto.com
/@def\.com/ addres...@w
On 2023-04-09 21:14, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
tom--- via Postfix-users:
I have this setting in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf,
reject
tom--- via Postfix-users:
> I have this setting in main.cf:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks,
> permit_sasl_authenticated,
> reject_unauth_destination,
> check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf,
> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
> reject_rbl_
On 9/04/23 21:23, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I am using the policyd-spf by default configuration (never changed a
line), and this is the doc:
https://manpages.debian.org/testing/postfix-policyd-spf-python/policyd-spf.conf.5.en.html
But the doc says noting about "OK" and "DUNNO". so how?
tom--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-04-09 09:51:
what action code policyd should return for passing the request to next
check?
DUNNO
as in https://doc.dovecot.org/configuration_manual/quota_plugin/
90-quota.conf example
___
Postfix-users mai
tom--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-04-09 08:18:
I was exactly using google DNS. Do u mean Google will block queries for
RBL?
incorrect questions gives incorrect answers
google does not block you, but the rbls is blocking google
we all live in a free world of unlimited problems to solve
On 2023-04-09 17:12, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
tom--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-04-09 04:02:
I have this setting in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
check_policy_service unix:private
tom--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-04-09 04:02:
I have this setting in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
reject
On 9/04/23 19:51, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
First off make sure that policyd isn't somehow returning an OK (or
equivalent) response, if you're not sure temporarily remove
"check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf," from your
restrictions above and see if it makes a difference.
what
On 9/04/23 18:18, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
Secondly, and this is *very* important, make certain you are not using
your ISP's or another public DNS resolver (such as 8.8.8.8). You
*must* run your own DNS resolver for DNSRBLs to work properly.
I was exactly using google DNS. Do u mean Go
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>permit_mynetworks,
>permit_sasl_authenticated,
>reject_unauth_destination,
>check_policy_service unix:private/policyd-spf,
>reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
>reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
>
> When I sent message from a Spamhaus Zen li
On 2023-04-09 13:53, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
On 9/04/23 14:02, tom--- via Postfix-users wrote:
I have this setting in main.cf:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unauth_destination,
check_policy_service unix:private/policyd
34 matches
Mail list logo
