On 21/06/24 07:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
Th
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 07:54:40AM +0800, Jeff Peng via Postfix-users wrote:
> Hello
>
> for these options for submission in master.cf:
>
> submission inet n - y - - smtpd
> # -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
> # -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
> -o smtpd_sa
Hello
for these options for submission in master.cf:
submission inet n - y - - smtpd
# -o syslog_name=postfix/submission
# -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt
-o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes
# -o smtpd_tls_auth_only=yes
# -o smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=no
#
On 2024-06-20 at 15:59:25 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:59:25 -0400
(EDT))
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
If you use some Milter like rspamd then you need milter_header_checks.
You could do that, but if a milter is handling the filter it can just
tell postfix to re
Le 21/06/2024 à 00:13, John Levine a écrit :
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch
best is to use a milter to reject spam, such as rspamd or
amavisd-milter, no forged header checks then
i know rspamd is a milter, but spamassassin not working as milter?
thanks.
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsu
It appears that Emmanuel Fusté via Postfix-users said:
>In the general case (not null sender), HELO SPF validation does not
>interfere with DMARC as DMARC only use the MAIL FROM identity.
>There was historically a bug in some DMARC implementation witch evaluate
>whatever SPF identity check that
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 01:02:36PM -0400, postfix--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> > Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> > will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
> An option is to have noreply@ delivered to /dev/null. It's valid and a
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users skrev den 2024-06-20 21:28:
If it’s header_checks, I would probably use something like
/^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-100[/ to catch everything above five.
header checks in postfix is done before content filters, so you would
love to reject spam on base of remot
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> > On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17?AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> >> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
> >> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
> >> m
On 6/20/2024 2:28 PM, Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users wrote:
On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
wrote:
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
m
Le 20/06/2024 à 21:13, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users a écrit :
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argumen
> On Jun 20, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
>> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
>> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
>> mail off to spamassassin for processing and the
Bounces are sent with the null envelope.from address which has no
domain. Therefore, SPF applies policy to a surrogate: the hostname
in the SMTP client's HELO/EHLO command (as if the envelope.from
address was postmaster@helo-argument).
This helo-argument is by default the value of the Postfix myho
So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF (for the sending hostname)
as I was seeing some of these I think.
Im confused by the language being used.
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 2:01 pm Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users, <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
> So there's a confusion between the hostname of the mailer and the
> doamin to be used for the SPF check. Is anybody else seeing this ?
>
Yes, I had to recently add an "a:" record to an SPF (for
Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any way,
rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an automatic
response. IMHO.
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. Peopl
2024. 06. 20. 14:33 keltezéssel, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users írta:
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
This is what I could match on: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.1
If the score was higher than some number (e.g >4) than reject the mail.
One could try
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 09:08:39 Bastian Blank via Postfix-users pisze:
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
Sender callout is discouraged now, because it is considered aggressive
behavior by
Dnia 20.06.2024 o godz. 08:51:33 Alexander Leidinger via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> This implies that the organization / company is willing to spend
> money on having someone available to actually respond / provide
> support. For a lot of the use cases I would say even a mail to
> ticket system gate
* Tan Mientras via Postfix-users:
> Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
> providing proper ways of contacting.
"Proper" is for the recipients of your messages to be able to use the
reply function in their MUA, to ask for clarification/assistance in
regards to the
On 2024-06-20 at 09:00:35 UTC-0400 (Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:00:35 +0200)
Emmanuel Seyman via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
Hello, all.
Since yesterday, I've started seeing email from my servers getting
rejected due to SPF problems.
550 5.7.23 : Sender address rejected: Message
rejected
Hello, all.
Since yesterday, I've started seeing email from my servers getting
rejected due to SPF problems.
550 5.7.23 : Sender address rejected: Message rejected
due to: SPF fail - not authorized. Please see
http://spf.libraesva.com/Why?s=helo;id=mail01.my-company.com;ip=192.168.52.130;r=do
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>>> One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
>>
>> Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that won't catch scores >= 10?
>
> Yes, but easily ad
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users wrote:
> > One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
>
> Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that won't catch scores >= 10?
Yes, but easily adapted.
> But I don't know how such a regex should be
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
>> This is what I could match on: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.1
>>
>> If the score was higher than some number (e.g >4) than reject the mail.
>
> One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/
Please cor
Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users:
> Is there a place in postfix where I could discard mail if it has
> a spam score higher than say 4 or 5? I know that postfix hands the
> mail off to spamassassin for processing and then receives it back
> for delivery, but I'm unclear what checks could be implemente
Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
On 20.06.24 11:22, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never recei
>
> Then you can not use this e-mail address as envelope sender. People
> will do sender callout and then reject all e-mail with this as sender.
>
Sorry. Im lost in translation. Could you elaborate/ELI5?
This address is not and will never receiveread any messages. Is an
automated message to noti
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 07:47:19AM +0200, Tan Mientras via Postfix-users wrote:
> @Ralph
> Is an automated/unattended email notifying the user about something,
> providing proper ways of contacting. As this email is not read in any way,
> rejecting the mail would be a better way to handle than an a
30 matches
Mail list logo
