Just one teeny tiny comment. Header_checks will trigger before procmail,
sieve and so on therefore I am pretty much out of luck. Empty subject fields
will be rejected before either procmail or sieve inserts / replaces the
subject field (header) in question. Are there any ways to run procmail
before
Noel Jones-2 wrote
> On 6/8/2019 10:11 AM, Den1 wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would be really thankful if someone could clarify it, please. It says
>> the
>> following, "Postfix works as documented in regexp_table(5) and
>> pcre_table(5), i.e. each que
Viktor Dukhovni wrote
>> On Jun 9, 2019, at 12:42 AM, Webmaster <
> webmaster@.klaipedaville
> > wrote:
>>
> The answer is simple. Postfix header checks DO NOT support any sort
> of multi-header conditionals or logic that depends on the order in
> which headers are checked against the rules. E
Hello,
I would be really thankful if someone could clarify it, please. It says the
following, "Postfix works as documented in regexp_table(5) and
pcre_table(5), i.e. each query stops at the first matching rule. Now the
following two rules are in conflict:
/^From:\s*assistant\@gmail\.com$/ REPLACE
Wietse Venema wrote
> Den1:
>> Plus, this is also exactly what I was asking about in my very first /
>> initial post. That is if postfix/smtps/smtpd meant connections to my 465
>
> No, you asked about "postfix/smtp/smtpd" not "postfix/smtps/smtpd".
>
&
Bill Cole-3 wrote
> Look closer.
>
> Neither postfix/smtp/smtpd nor postfifix/smtp/smtpd appear in the log
> lines you posted.
>
> What IS there is 'postfix/smtps/smtpd', which indicates connections to
> your port 465 "wrappermode" instance of smtpd.
>
> --
> Bill Cole
> bill@
> or
> bil
Thank you all for replying. I really do appreciate your input.
When the first extract from the log is pretty obvious as it says scan, the
second one is not really clear to me. Did the client try to connect in order
to send mail? Does postfix/smtp/smtpd mean sending out? I just assume it but
I am
Wietse Venema wrote
> Den1:
>> Wietse Venema wrote
>> > Den1:
>> >> Hello everybody,
>> >>
>> >> I was wondering if anybody could advise please, on what does this log
>> >> entry
>> >> mean postfix/smtp/smtpd? I kno
Wietse Venema wrote
> Den1:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> I was wondering if anybody could advise please, on what does this log
>> entry
>> mean postfix/smtp/smtpd? I know postfix/smtp is to send mails out to the
>
> postfix = syslog_name setting in main.
Hello everybody,
I was wondering if anybody could advise please, on what does this log entry
mean postfix/smtp/smtpd? I know postfix/smtp is to send mails out to the
world, postfix/smtpd stands for daemon that rules out deliveries for
incoming mail. What about postfix/smtp/smtpd? Is it something i
Viktor Dukhovni wrote
>> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Den1 <
> webmaster@
> > wrote:
>>
>>> smtp_tls_ciphers = medium
>>> smtp_tls_exclude_ciphers =
>>> MD5,SRP,PSK,aDSS,kECDH,kDH,SEED,IDEA,RC2,RC5,RC4
>>
>> Why would you exclude
L.P.H. van Belle wrote
> smtp_tls_ciphers = medium
> smtp_tls_exclude_ciphers =
> MD5,SRP,PSK,aDSS,kECDH,kDH,SEED,IDEA,RC2,RC5,RC4
>
> Greetz,
> Louis
Why would you exclude these ciphers and make them medium, Louis?
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Po
Well, Viktor was talking about those:
smtp_tls_security_level = encrypt -or- secure
smtp_tls_CAfile = /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt
and my question was about those as well. You may read it once again since
you have this one set:
smtp_tls_security_level = may
and I think it's not the same
Hi Louis,
Thank you for your input, I appreciate. I have smtpd running OK with all the
key_file, cert_file and so on. I was asking about smtp. These two are
different :-)
--
View this message in context:
http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Postfix-cannot-start-tls-handshake-failure-tp89684p
I was wondering is it actually advisable to use tls on smtp? When I tried it
out with my self-signed certificates just to see if it's of any convenience
to implement this feature I received the following response:
TLS required, but was not offered by host -or- we do not run TLS engine -or-
certifi
Tom Hendrikx wrote
> The easiest trick to achieve this is to configure the milter to add a
> header in stead of rejecting.
>
> Then use postfix milter_headers_checks option to detect the header and
> make postfix send the reject, including your custom message. I use this
> with clamav and spamass-
Since Linda brought it up I thought I would pop in as well. That's exactly
what I tried to configure too but in spamass-milter in combination with
Postfix. It's working OK but always says this,
5xx Reject milter
END-OF-MESSAGE
185.127.117.96 server52744.sledco.com
Bl
Peter van der Does wrote
> Spamhaus and others limit the replies they get from large DNS
> providers[1], like Wietse said.
>
> You can overcome this issue by running a local forwarding DNS server
> locally on your network and use this as a DSN resolver for your network.
>
> Peter
>
> [1] https:/
Wietse Venema wrote
> zen.spamhaus.org provides a service that depends the DNS client IP
> address. Low-volume DNS clients get free service, but high-volume
> DNS clients have to pay for a subscription.
>
> For example, if you use the resolver at a big ISP, or a public
> service like 8.8.8.8 or 4.
Wietse Venema wrote
> Den1:
>> 22:19:13 postfix/postscreen[14390]: CONNECT from [46.22.210.20]:58953 to
>> [1.1.1.1]:25
>> 22:19:13 postfix/dnsblog[14391]: addr 46.22.210.20 listed by domain
>> zen.spamhaus.org as 127.0.0.3
>> 22:19:17 postfix/postscreen[14390
Hello list,
I would highly appreciate it if someone advised on the following, please.
I have these settings:
postscreen_greet_action = enforce
postscreen_dnsbl_action = drop
postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 1
postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org bl.spamcop.net
b.barracudacentral.org
The IP add
Noel Jones-2 wrote
> On 10/29/2016 1:45 AM, Den1 wrote:
>> Could you please, advise where do I exactly place those three in order
>> for
>> them to work (based on my postconf -n and postconf -Mf pasted here)?
>>
>> 1.) -o cleanup_service_name=subcleanup
>
>
Noel Jones-2 wrote
> On 10/27/2016 9:46 PM, Den1 wrote:
>> Well, here it goes. My postconf -n looks like this:
>
> I can't see any obvious reason why your header_checks aren't working
> as expected. Keep in mind that postfix can't remove headers that
> don&
Well, here it goes. My postconf -n looks like this:
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
append_dot_mydomain = no
biff = no
body_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/bodychecks
bounce_template_file = /etc/postfix/bounce.cf
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
config_directory = /etc/postfix
default_destination_concur
>>Do you have receive_override_options set in main.cf?
Yes, I do, but I disabled them for testing purposes.
>>What's "postconf -n" show?
>>what's "postconf -Mf" show?
Would you like me to post the entire output of postconf -n and postconf -Mf?
Won't your list ban me for flooding because of it
my apologies to post here again as the thread is quite old but I am having аn
absolutely identical issue. I cannot seem to remove any headers at all no
matter what I do.
I tried setting this in master.cf:
submission inet n - - - - smtpd
-o smtpd_tls_security_level=e
>If you still want help, post actual technical details:
>
>1) non-verbose logging,
>2) the "postconf -n" for the configuration that produced that logging
>
>I also recommend http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
>
>Then, someone may be able to see what mistake you are making.
>
>quote author="li...@rhsoft.net"
>since you still have not solved your issue:
>if you would have used "spamass-milter" from the very begin
>besides the before-queue filtering you would not need to
>mangle around in postfix configurations to drop messages
I have by now tried it with milters = no j
28 matches
Mail list logo
