On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 08:18:24AM +0200, Bastian Blank via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:46:41PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > Indeed, but I would also recommend to not entirely delete the Received
> > headers, rather censor just the IP address or other
On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:46:41PM +1000, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Indeed, but I would also recommend to not entirely delete the Received
> headers, rather censor just the IP address or other "private" fields.
> Some receiving MTAs treat absence of origin Received headers as a si
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 05:45:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
> [...]
> > Here's what I've done:
> >
> > 1/ Create header_checks file with the following:
> > /^Received:/ IGNORE
> > /^User-Agent:/ IGNORE
> > /^X-Mailer:/ IGNORE
> > /^X-User-Agent
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 09:05:20PM +0300, Dāvis Mosāns via Postfix-users wrote:
> That's the issue, transport map I have:
> transport_maps = lmdb:/etc/postfix/transport
> with:
> * smtp:internal.example.org
Wildcard transport overrides are best avoided.
> It's used for both cases.
Which is not
Laura Smith via Postfix-users:
> I am running an instance of Postfix that is an authenticated relay.
>
> Overall it is working great except user IPs are leaking through Received
> headers.
>
> I thought I configured it right, but obviously not.
>
> Here's what I've done:
>
> 1/ Create header_c
Tuesday, August 6, 2024, 10:08:33 PM, Marek Podmaka via Postfix-users wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 09:51, Phil Biggs via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>> I only use list.dnswl.org (for good ones) and zen.spamhaus.org (bad) in
>> postscreen. Very effective but I did, just once, see an IP simultaneou
I am running an instance of Postfix that is an authenticated relay.
Overall it is working great except user IPs are leaking through Received
headers.
I thought I configured it right, but obviously not.
Here's what I've done:
1/ Create header_checks file with the following:
/^Received:/ IGNORE
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users:
> If you must route mail for ARBITRARY DESTINATIONS depending on what
> service it was received with, then in many cases you will need
> separate Postfix instances.
Sorry, make that: if you must route mail for any destination depending
on what service it was receiv
D?vis Mos?ns:
> piektd., 2024. g. 2. aug., plkst. 02:46 ? lietot?js Wietse Venema
> () rakst?ja:
> >
> > D?vis Mos?ns via Postfix-users:
> > > ceturtd., 2024. g. 1. aug., plkst. 09:10 ? lietot?js Wietse Venema via
> > > Postfix-users () rakst?ja:
> > > >
> > > > Davis Mosans via Postfix-users:
> >
piektd., 2024. g. 2. aug., plkst. 02:46 — lietotājs Wietse Venema
() rakstīja:
>
> D?vis Mos?ns via Postfix-users:
> > ceturtd., 2024. g. 1. aug., plkst. 09:10 ? lietot?js Wietse Venema via
> > Postfix-users () rakst?ja:
> > >
> > > Davis Mosans via Postfix-users:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm tr
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 09:51, Phil Biggs via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I only use list.dnswl.org (for good ones) and zen.spamhaus.org (bad) in
> postscreen. Very effective but I did, just once, see an IP simultaneously
> listed in both.
DNSWL is not for the good ones. It is for well-known mailserve
Hello
I saw 96-92-246-116-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net has no A record pointing to
your IP.
Though this IP does have a PTR record as above.
Maybe you have 'reject_unknown_client_hostname' setup in your main.cf?
Thanks.
>
> Hello All,
>
> I'm getting rejections showing:
> reject: RCPT fr
On 05.08.24 21:00, Joey J via Postfix-users wrote:
I'm getting rejections showing:
reject: RCPT from unknown[96.92.246.116]: 450 4.7.25 Client host rejected:
cannot find your hostname
But if I do an nslookup on the same box, it does resolve.
it does, but only reverse:
116.246.92.96.in-addr.ar
13 matches
Mail list logo
