On 18/04/2025 20:06, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users wrote:
I remember now when I implemented SRS, I configured separate postfix
instance for outgoing mail. This is the postfix issue described in
postsrs docs: canonical maps are processed when mail is being received.
Yep, I have 2 s
On 2025-04-18 at 14:06:57 UTC-0400 (Fri, 18 Apr 2025 20:06:57 +0200)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
I don't recommend enforcing length shorter than mentioned RFC minimum of 64.
On 18.04.25 14:53, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
That's easy enough to enfo
On 2025-04-18 at 14:06:57 UTC-0400 (Fri, 18 Apr 2025 20:06:57 +0200)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> I don't recommend enforcing length shorter than mentioned RFC minimum of 64.
That's easy enough to enforce with a regexp/pcre sender access map.
--
Bill Col
strange, according to
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#socketmap_max_reply_size the
maximum reply size is 100k by default. I use postsrd without
problems.
On 18.04.25 18:47, Dmytro Alieksieiev via Postfix-users wrote:
want to highlight this is not permanent issue and this is first time I
Hi,
> Other option also would be to use antispam solutions and write such rules
> there, they allow much more complex logic and if your intention to prevent
> spam - antispam system that has sane defaults is good choice. Postfix can
> work with any milter compatible antispam like Rspamd or SpamAss
> On Apr 17, 2025, at 05:36, Bill Cole via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On 2025-04-17 at 05:09:25 UTC-0400 (Thu, 17 Apr 2025 02:09:25 -0700)
> Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Long IDs and not a lot of spam. Normal is in the 10s daily. Occasionally
>> it can get u
Hi Matus,
strange, according to
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#socketmap_max_reply_size the
maximum reply size is 100k by default.
I use postsrd without problems.
want to highlight this is not permanent issue and this is first time I
see such error over very long time I had SRS, erro
On 2025-04-17 at 21:05:50 UTC-0400 (Thu, 17 Apr 2025 21:05:50 -0400)
Greg Klanderman via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> Hi Bill
>
> Thanks for your reply..
Always happy to be of help.
[...]
> OK:
>
> % postconf | grep 'postscreen_.*_\(enable\|action\)'
> [output order rearranged]
> #
On 2025-04-17 at 23:19:06 UTC-0400 (Fri, 18 Apr 2025 05:19:06 +0200)
Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> Greg Klanderman via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-04-18 03:05:
>
>>> Hard evidence of that would be helpful to show exactly what is logged and
>>> exactly what configura
On 18.04.25 11:17, Dmytro Alieksieiev via Postfix-users wrote:
I get a bit annoying spam lately to rcpts like
<1239123129381239...@example.com> where localpart is bunch of numbers
and just localpart alone length is more then 300 chars.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.
Actually nope, I don't know how you manage your SA, it's another issue,
but for well designed system it's totally okay to have different actions
for different conditions. I not SA guru, but for Rspamd I know for sure
that you easily can do stuff like force actions based on multimaps
prefilters,
On 2025-04-17 at 20:49:12 UTC-0400 (Fri, 18 Apr 2025 02:49:12 +0200)
Ralph Seichter via Postfix-users
is rumored to have said:
> * Alex via Postfix-users:
>
>> It looks like this is the place to start?
>> https://github.com/milter-regex/milter-regex/tree/main
>
> I recommend starting at http://be
More over issue not in SRS, issue actually about postfix in general. I
don't know why there no defaults to do any validations check of
sender|rcpts.
Regards,
Dmytro Alieksieiev
DevOps Engineer
On 18/04/2025 13:20, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Dmytro Alieksieiev via Postfix-users sk
if you like we can speak about ARC and Rspamd in Rspamd community:
https://t.me/rspamd I'm active there - @drago_angel - but it's just for
a fun, it will not help with case I trying to solve.
Regards,
Dmytro Alieksieiev
DevOps Engineer
On 18/04/2025 14:00, Dmytro Alieksieiev wrote:
see headers
1. ARC not provide a way to send bounce to sender when rcpt behind srs
can't accept email due to x reasons. SRS needed when you doing
forwarding service.
2. ARC not used on practice to trust email without DKIM and failed SPF,
if you not rewrite envelope on forwarding mentioned rspamd will
pot
Dmytro Alieksieiev skrev den 2025-04-18 13:25:
Hi Benn, you want propose any better alternatives for a forwarding to
not break SPF and have ability properly send emails without DKIM?
the forwarding host have there own spf record, so fix this, its teknical
not possible to have borh envelope sen
Hi Benn, you want propose any better alternatives for a forwarding to
not break SPF and have ability properly send emails without DKIM?
Regards,
Dmytro Alieksieiev
DevOps Engineer
On 18/04/2025 13:20, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users wrote:
Dmytro Alieksieiev via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-0
Dmytro Alieksieiev via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-04-18 11:17:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_access
regexp:/etc/postfix/recipient_address_length_restrictions
...
/etc/postfix/recipient_address_length_restrictions
/^.{38,}@/554 5.1.7 Recipient address rejected: Loc
Hi community,
I get a bit annoying spam lately to rcpts like
<1239123129381239...@example.com> where localpart is bunch of numbers
and just localpart alone length is more then 300 chars.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.3.1.1 says
"The maximum total length of a user
Greg Klanderman via Postfix-users skrev den 2025-04-18 03:05:
Hard evidence of that would be helpful to show exactly what is logged
and
exactly what configuration postscreen is
using. https://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail gives details.
OK:
% postconf | grep 'postscreen_.*_\(enable\
natan via Postfix-users:
> Hi
> I known that but I terminated tls via haproxy
Then this is better discussed on an HaProxy forum.
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le.
21 matches
Mail list logo
