-- Doug
> On Apr 24, 2024, at 09:05, John Levine via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> It appears that Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> said:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:01:46AM -, John Levine via Postfix-users
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I must
> On Apr 23, 2024, at 12:08, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:46:22AM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>>> RFC 3676 addresses this.
>>
>> That was an amazing and helpful response. RFC 2045 showed exact
> On Apr 22, 2024, at 23:31, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On 22.04.24 22:55, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>> This is probably not the right place to be asking this as it is not directly
>> Postfix related, but I don't know a bett
is needed to get the reassembly to work again?
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
> On Feb 10, 2024, at 15:55, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie via Postfix-users:
>> I used Viktor's collate to trace a specific email handling. There were a
>> number of these entries. However, I am only showing 2 of them:
>>
g MTA
confused or am I?
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
force the originating MTA to queue and try later. That
seems to be what is benefiting me. So far, there have not been any complaints
of desired mail not being delivered. There were only 6 defers yesterday.
Normally there are a couple hundred.
-- Doug
> On Feb 7, 2024, at 17:23, Alex via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm hoping I could ask for some advice. We have a pretty large percentage of
> users who forward mail through our systems to personal Gmail accounts.
> Sometimes it is mail from bulk senders like mailgun and lanyon/cvent.
s for that email.
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
> On Dec 7, 2023, at 00:27, patpro--- via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> December 7, 2023 9:12 AM, "Doug Hardie via Postfix-users"
> wrote:
>
>> Indeed: postsrsd upgraded: 1.10 -> 2.0.8_1,1
>
> OK. I’m still running 1.10 : it does not use a config fil
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 23:48, patpro--- via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> December 6, 2023 10:00 AM, "Doug Hardie via Postfix-users"
> wrote:
>
>> I just upgraded FreeBSD from 13.2 to 14.0. Postfix just picked up and ran
>> fine. However postsrsd
think about what it should be doing ;-)
-- Doug
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 09:07, Bill Cole via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On 2023-12-06 at 04:00:21 UTC-0500 (Wed, 6 Dec 2023 01:00:21 -0800)
> Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> I just upgrade
Not that I can find
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 02:49, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Dnia 6.12.2023 o godz. 01:00:21 Doug Hardie via Postfix-users pisze:
>> The config files (conf and conf.sample) all had dates
>> of 14 Nov so I suspect they were replaced
ble to locate the problem. I added my local domain to domains, and mail to
those addresses get delivered locally. So it appears that postfix is talking
to postsrsd properly. It's just not working for non-local addresses.
-- Doug
___
Pos
gt;> This way, even forwarding using ~user/.forward will get SRS'ed.
>>>
>>> However, any mail from foreign domains without DKIM may still get rejected.
>
> On 29.10.23 11:57, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>> I run a similar mail server. I use SRS and
-- Doug
> On Oct 29, 2023, at 10:59, Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On 29.10.23 16:43, Robert Inder via Postfix-users wrote:
>> For 10 years now I've been running a Linux (CentOS 7) server, using
>> Postfix to handle mail for a handful o
e it
> didn't
> replace sendmail like I thought it did.
>
> Thanks.
The FreeBSD handbook has a section that shows how to replace sendmail with
postfix, Section 30.4
Changes are needed to /etc/rc.conf and /etc/mail/mailer.conf
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
> On Apr 29, 2023, at 00:06, Roger Klorese via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Reply-To, not Reply To.
>
What a bone-head mistake. Thanks. Now it works just fine.
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
> On Apr 28, 2023, at 23:13, Noel Jones via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 29, 2023, at 12:43 AM, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have an app that sends SMTP to post fix to deliver an email. The first
>> line it se
header lines
are in the header and only show up in the text. Is this normal, or have I done
something wrong?
If I leave out the Reply To line, then everything works fine.
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 13:15, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 12:16:30PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>>>> Are there any others and how close am I?
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.iana.org/
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 11:59, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> A couple of questions. Looking in the postfix generated Received:
>> header, the SMTP id often has a
was authenticated
Are there any others and how close am I?
When the alias file pipes an email to a program, does it expect any response
from that program, or would it do anything with a response?
Thanks,
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list
ME. I don't think it is using those tables to
rewrite addresses, but it is not obvious why it accesses them. The aliases,
vmail_aliases, lafn_alises,and mailman/data/aliases are all in the
virtual_address_maps. I have them split into multiple files to make
maintenance easier. smtp
-- Doug
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 15:04, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:53:42PM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>>> inline:{{digitalinsight.firefightersfirstcreditunion.org =
>>> permit_auth_desti
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 14:27, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:15:27PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> Thanks Viktor. I went with the first approach and am getting errors:
&
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 13:28, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 12:52:01PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> I don't want to remove the "reject_unknown_sender_domain" function as
>> it gets used pr
der_domain" function as it gets used properly a
lot. Is there some way I can get postfix to accept these for local delivery?
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
> On Mar 19, 2023, at 18:26, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 03:48:07PM -0700, Doug Hardie via Postfix-users wrote:
>
>> Is there a debug setting that will show which tables are searched when
>> an incoming email is received
Is there a debug setting that will show which tables are searched when an
incoming email is received and delivered to a mailbox?
-- Doug
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size=1943447, nrcpt=41 (queue active)
Feb 20 09:25:15 freeport
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Rob McGee wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:20 PM, Doug Denault wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size=1943447, nrcpt=41 (queue active
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Rob McGee wrote:
On 2/20/2023 9:25 AM, Doug Denault wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:35:43PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
With my setup no warning is deferred errors
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
The most current message (edited for privacy):
Feb 20 09:25:14 freeport postfix/qmgr[88969]: 7883F510EBC:
from=, size=1943447, nrcpt=41 (queue active)
Feb 20 09:25:15 freeport postfix/smtp[67456]: 7883F510EBC:
to=, relay=none, delay
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Wietse Venema wrote:
Doug Denault:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:35:43PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
With my setup no warning is deferred errors such as 'time out' or
'Connection refused' until the messag
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:03:31PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
I added:
delay_warning_time = 8h
to main.cf. This made no difference so I assume an additional setting is
required, but I could not find anything.
This setting only affects *new
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:35:43PM -0500, Doug Denault wrote:
With my setup no warning is deferred errors such as 'time out' or
'Connection refused' until the message is delete from the queue.
I added:
delay_warning_time =
With my setup no warning is deferred errors such as 'time out' or
'Connection refused' until the message is delete from the queue.
I added:
delay_warning_time = 8h
to main.cf. This made no difference so I assume an additional setting is
required, but I could not find anything.
_
Doug
> On Feb 9, 2023, at 12:25 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>
> Dnia 8.02.2023 o godz. 23:15:37 Doug Hardie pisze:
>>
>> The message is delivered to a mailbox on the host, not sent to mailman.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anywhere in your confi
TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
(256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest
SHA256
Feb 8 23:06:29 mail postfix-submission/smtpd[10647]: 4PC7Fd2yDbz2fjQ8:
client=master[10.0.1.250], sasl_method=CRAM-MD5, sasl_username=doug
Feb 8 23:06:29 mail postsrsd[10652]: srs_forward: rewritten as
On Nov 24, 2022, at 07:05, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
>
> Doug:
>
> There's implicit reject_unlisted_recipient at the end of rules when
> smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient=on (default).
>
> However when
> On Nov 23, 2022, at 23:27, Phil Biggs wrote:
>
> Thursday, November 24, 2022, 5:24:12 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>
>> I am trying with the postscreen dns lookup disabled. Here is the main.cf
>> section:
>
>> # postscreen spam filtering
> On Nov 23, 2022, at 4:49 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 23.11.22 01:58, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I originally had incoming_smtpd_restrictions set to:
>>
>> reject_unverified_recipient
>> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
>>
into incoming_smtpd_restrictions. I believe that way,
only the mail that has a valid recipient will have the dns rbls checked. Am I
understanding this correctly? Thanks,
-- Doug
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
On 31/12/2021 10:36, Doug Denault wrote:
This is a postfix/cyrus/mysql system running in a FreeBSD jail. It is
(as far as I can make it) identical to a bare metal with the same
configuration. Delivery & reading email works fine,
This is a postfix/cyrus/mysql system running in a FreeBSD jail. It is (as
far as I can make it) identical to a bare metal with the same
configuration. Delivery & reading email works fine, the jailed system will
not send email failing with:
cyrus postfix/smtpd[51745]: warning: SASL: Connect to
> Doug Sampson:
> > I've opened an account with Spamhaus to use their Data Query
> > Service. I've reconfigured the main.cf to incorporate the necessary
> > adjustments.
> >
> > One thing I've noticed that when the maps (postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map
> I have followed their manual and it works.
>
> postfix/dnsblog[6907]: addr 116.255.29.67 listed by domain MY-API-
> KEY.zen.dq.spamhaus.net as 127.0.0.3
> postfix/dnsblog[6907]: addr 116.255.29.67 listed by domain MY-API-
> KEY.zen.dq.spamhaus.net as 127.0.0.4
> postfix/dnsblog[6909]: addr 11
e results of
these DQS tests aren't published in the mail log. Consequently the
spamrep_today report is missing such information.
Is there a way to incorporate these maps and publish the test results in the
mail log?
~Doug
I have an interesting question about logging. Postfix is working fine. I have
one domain, sermon-archive.info, as mydomain. All other domains are listed in
vmail_domains, for example:
lafn.orgOK
vmail_users contains:
bc...@lafn.org home_mail/doug/
vmail_alias
> On 14 July 2021, at 06:12, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>>
>>> On 12 July 2021, at 18:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>>
>>> Doug Hardie:
>>>> I have a postfix server that uses postscreen. However, occasionally
>>>>
> On 12 July 2021, at 18:27, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>> I have a postfix server that uses postscreen. However, occasionally
>> a needed mail is blocked by one of the spam services. Is there a
>> way to bypass postscreen for just one or more specif
I have a postfix server that uses postscreen. However, occasionally a needed
mail is blocked by one of the spam services. Is there a way to bypass
postscreen for just one or more specific addresses for a short time?
-- Doug
ral health organizations, a mail server that is normally not
sending spam, some California legislators, but I believe probably 80% are spam.
I am not ready to block those yet. If that is the best they can do, then it's
better than in the clear.
-- Doug
if DMA, Dragonfly mail agent, is available for your machine. It
is a very simple send only mail server. It is easy to setup and run. Only
sends mail. Nothing else other than DNS resolution is required.
-- Doug
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Noel Jones wrote:
Staring at postconf (or somewhat easier, postconf -n) output is unlikely to
fix this without clues in the log of what the problem is.
Start here:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#logging
If you need more help from us:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Bill Cole wrote:
On 30 Aug 2020, at 20:24, Doug Denault wrote:
working system:
lighthouse:~> sockstat | egrep "postfix|master" | egrep ":[2\5]+"
postfix smtpd 98709 6 tcp4 *:25 *:*
postfix smtpd
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020, Noel Jones wrote:
On 8/30/2020 2:57 PM, Doug Denault wrote:
I am upgrading from postfix-2.8.7,1 and cyrus-imapd-2.3.18 to
postfix-3.5.6,1 and cyrus-imapd30-3.0.14. The old system uses sasldb
authentication, the new one MySQL. This is on FreeBSD.
I have compared the conf
I am upgrading from postfix-2.8.7,1 and cyrus-imapd-2.3.18 to
postfix-3.5.6,1 and cyrus-imapd30-3.0.14. The old system uses sasldb
authentication, the new one MySQL. This is on FreeBSD.
I have compared the conf files on two addition postfix systems and can see
no differences of consequence. I
h the trees as the
documentation is detailed and complete. However, once you discover the
forrest, then the documentation will be quite helpful.
-- Doug
> On 9 June 2020, at 14:26, Scott A. Wozny wrote:
>
> In the context of looking at implementing Postscreen, I’ve read through the
r users were hit by spammers with more resources ;-) I
would have kept greylisting if we had seen numbers like that.
-- Doug
y all the spammers are now using high
quality mail servers like postfix. They seem to retry forever. Greylisting
has become pretty much useless. When I disabled it a couple years ago, the
spam levers did not increase by any measurable amount. We now use just 3 RBLs
and that seems to be a relatively acceptable level of spam.
-- Doug
> On 5 March 2020, at 17:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:57:59PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>> Small mail server with 3 weeks of logs:
>>
>> 1761 TLSv1
>> 18 TLSv1.1
>> 20414 TLSv1.2
>> 6343 TLSv1.3
>>
> On 5 March 2020, at 17:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:57:59PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>> Small mail server with 3 weeks of logs:
>>
>> 1761 TLSv1
>> 18 TLSv1.1
>> 20414 TLSv1.2
>> 6343 TLSv1.3
>>
28/128 bits)
Small mail server with 3 weeks of logs:
1761 TLSv1
18 TLSv1.1
20414 TLSv1.2
6343 TLSv1.3
0 SSL
That's not what I expected. I thought v1 and v1.1 would be reversed. There is
a complete spectrum of ciphers being used with v1 including some of the most
recent. I am using the defaults for the protocols and ciphers.
-- Doug
>
g the SYNs though. It almost appears to
be a really poor attempt at a denial of service. I did find 2 other sites
sending the same thing.
-- Doug
> On Feb 13, 2020, at 16:05, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>> Thanks. I finally understand it. Interestingly enough, both of
>> the corrupt/* files had zero length.
>
> Did the files have permissions rwx? Then at some point they contained
> an email m
On 13 February 2020, at 03:28, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:43:59PM -0800, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>> I seem to have a couple corrupt messages. Restarting postfix gives:
>>
>> service postfix restart
>> postfix/postfix-script: stopping t
ssing
something on how to do that. Thanks,
-- Doug
greylisting became fairly
ineffective. It was blocking less than 5% of the spam when I discontinued it.
I suspect that most of us who implemented greylisting considered the receipt of
spam to be a system problem and hence the 400 series codes were appropriate.
YMMV.
-- Doug
On Jun 30, 2019, at 20:42, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> By default, the Postfix SMTP server invokes the proxymap
>>> service for local user lookup, because the default
>>> local
> On Jun 30, 2019, at 19:22, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>> This is a small server with a few users that are all local. There
>> are several domain names that point to this server, but all of
>> them are just aliases for the main name. Received mail st
smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot
smtpd_soft_error_limit = 1
smtpd_tls_cert_file = /etc/mail/certs/mail.pem
smtpd_tls_key_file = /etc/mail/certs/mail.key
smtpd_tls_loglevel = 1
smtpd_tls_security_level = may
unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
-- Doug
> On 28 November 2018, at 01:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
> On 27.11.18 10:52, Asai wrote:
>> With Mozilla recently dropping support for all Symantec certs, our security
>> cert now throws errors on Thunderbird clients. We’d like to install
>> certbot on Centos 6, but I’m not sure if i
> On 23 May 2018, at 13:41, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 23, 2018, at 4:10 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> incoming_smtpd_restrictions =
>> check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:10040,
>> reject_invalid
> On 23 May 2018, at 13:17, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 23, 2018, at 4:10 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> I would think that cache would be cleared with a restart.
>
> No. The verification cache survives restart. This is intentional.
There
> On 23 May 2018, at 11:43, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 23, 2018, at 2:23 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> It is a non-existent address and is fine. It's just surprising that one of
>> the non-existent addresses gets a different log messa
> On 23 May 2018, at 09:24, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:39:08AM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I am running a mail server that has a few local recipients and a
>> bunch of forwarded recipients for one domain. All is working
>> properly. However,
s was
removed from virtual_alias_maps and then the unknown messages started. Postfix
was re-started after that change was made (not a reload).
-- Doug
> On 24 April 2018, at 13:48, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>>> On 22 April 2018, at 05:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>>
>>> Doug Hardie:
>>>> I understood from the dnsblog man page that each dnsblog process
>>>> only lives fo
> On 22 April 2018, at 05:50, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Doug Hardie:
>> I understood from the dnsblog man page that each dnsblog process
>> only lives for a "limited amount of time". I noticed this because
>> I have over 50 dnsblog processes running on
s. I believe I can limit the number of
dnsblog processes in master.cf (currently set to 0), but I am not sure that is
a good idea. How long are these processes supposed to live?
-- Doug
then the normal response is for people to
reply-all. That spams a lot of people who don't want to see those, or don't
want their email address published. By using BCCs, you avoid both issues.
-- Doug
Thanks for the correction. Since the replacement is not
time critical, the old certificates will have a few days validity remaining.
One of those limits will certainly be reached by then.
-- Doug
-- Doug
> On 12 April 2018, at 16:29, Ian R. Bennett wrote:
>
> On 2018-04-12 16:25, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I am needing to replace the certificate and key. Are they read and
>> cached when postfix starts, or are they read during normal mail
>> handling? In oth
I am needing to replace the certificate and key. Are they read and cached when
postfix starts, or are they read during normal mail handling? In other words,
can I replace the files or do I need to do a reload or restart of the service
afterwards?
-- Doug
> On 16 November 2017, at 14:45, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>> I have a domain, say: aaa.com for which I receive mail. Currently I have A
>> records in DNS for aaa.com and mail.aaa.com as we
aaa.com and it
"needs" to be changed to elsewhere. I somehow seem to recall that there are
some MTAs that do not use the MX records, but only check the A records. Will
changing the A record for aaa.com cause the loss of some incoming mail?
-- Doug
Thanks. I went with:
IF /^Message-id:/
/@qq\.com/ Reject
ENDIF
It's not all that pretty, but it works fine. I have been watching the logs and
those messages are now being rejected. Thanks for all the help.
-- Doug
> On 7 September 2017, at 15:50, pgndev wrote:
>
>
> On 7 September 2017, at 15:28, pgndev wrote:
>
> It ain't pretty, or recommended for the long term, but something like this
> should slow it down
>
> /etc/postfix/main.cf
> header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
>
> /etc/postfix/header_checks.pcre
> IF
My server is being hit pretty hard by spam from China. Every email is from a
different IP address. The only common item is the message id ends in @qq.com.
Is there any way to block those with that ID?
-- Doug
> On 7 July 2017, at 08:44, Noel Jones wrote:
>
> On 7/7/2017 12:37 AM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 July 2017, at 12:40, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6 July 2017, at 12:06, Noel Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>&
> On 6 July 2017, at 12:40, Doug Hardie wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6 July 2017, at 12:06, Noel Jones wrote:
>>
>> main.cf doesn't allow spaces in the options. The supported syntax
>> is to either use commas "," rather than spaces; enclose the option
Thanks for the pointers on that. I spent a couple days digging around and
never found it.
On 6 July 2017, at 12:06, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:45:01AM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> When using virtual domains,
>
> (That part is not relevant.)
&g
first approach should have
worked. Apparently I have formatted the options incorrectly. What did I do
wrong?
-- Doug
When using virtual domains, is there a way to return a temp fail message for a
specific user in a domain? I am not finding anything about that in the
documentation.
infoOK
second.domain OK
mail# more vmail_alias
postmaster doug
bc979 doug
bc979-1 edward
bc979-4 jeanne
user1 mailb...@gmail.com
u
> On 9 May 2017, at 22:19, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 00:48, Doug Hardie wrote:
>> I have a situation that is most likely a problem with my understanding
>> of postfix and not a code problem. I am getting ready to take over a
>> domain name
main names 1-4 above are not in any of the other maps, or in any file in
the config directory. When I had only the following in vmail_alias:
testuser@domain5testuser@domain1
Mail to testuser@domain5 was properly forwarded to testuser@domain1. Domain5
is in the virtual_mailbox_domains file.
— Doug
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
