>
> Perhaps you're looking for this:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_sender_dependent_authentication
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_sasl_password_maps
>
Hey nice, so I can actually put senders in sasl_mmaps instead of just
relays. That is indeed what I need. Th
Hi, any chance someone could comment on this?
Thanks!
Original Message
Subject: Combining sender_dependent_relayhost_maps and
smtp_sasl_password_maps
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:11:20 +0200
From: Erik Logtenberg
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Hi,
I am trying to use the
, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
> autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
> no idea wher the UNPARSEABLE_RELAY comes from and how to disable it :-(
>
> however, i am still interested in REPLACE just for things
> like /192\.168\.196\./ REPLACE /84\.113\.92\./
>
> A
Why don't you simply configure SpamAssassin to not put the version
number in the header to begin with?
You can use directives like clear_headers, add_headers in your local.cf
configuration file to configure these.
For instance I have these two lines in my local.cf:
clear_headers
add_header all S
Hi,
I am trying to use the functionality of sender_dependent_relayhost_maps
and smtp_sasl_password_maps, but I run into an issue.
With sender_dependent_relayhost_maps I can configure postfix to use the
right relayhosts for different senders. I use this because I have many
email accounts, but I wa
Oh never mind, just read this message.. ;)
On 06-08-14 13:46, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> * Wietse Venema [2014-07-15 19:33]:
>> Proudly presenting Postfix SMTPUTF8 support! Below is text from
>> the RELEASE_NOTES file for postfix-2.12-20140715, to be uploaded
>> later today.
>
> Aaand Google h
It appears that Google Gmail is going to continue adding support for RFC
6530. I'm not sure if that implies that they will implement RFC 6531,
but it seems that way.
http://gmailblog.blogspot.nl/2014/08/a-first-step-toward-more-global-email.html
On 30-12-13 18:36, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse:
ble?
Kind regards,
Erik Logtenberg.
On 04/23/2014 05:33 PM, Michael Storz wrote:
> Am 2014-04-23 13:39, schrieb Erik Logtenberg:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I request a (success) DSN from my Postfix server, my server responds
>> as expected. Usually my mail server has to deliver the
Hi,
If I request a (success) DSN from my Postfix server, my server responds
as expected. Usually my mail server has to deliver the mail remotely and
I would like Postfix to request a DSN from the remote server as well if
the user asked for one. Is that possible?
Kind regards,
Erik.
Thank you Wietse,
I tested with test-milter per your instructions and confirmed that
postfix does indeed include the i-macro. After some more digging I found
out that Fedora installed Sendmail::PMilter instead of the apparently
obsoleted Sendmail::Milter package. Unfortunately for some reason
PMil
Hi,
I wrote a small milter using Sendmail::Milter in perl. This worked okay
with postfix 2.6.5, but it doesn't with 2.7.0. I use the i-macro
(postfix queue-id) in the EOM-callback function. Previously, the i-macro
was always set at this stage, but now this is no longer the case. I
built the milter
Michael Weissenbacher wrote:
>> Conclusion: the spam is passed! I could stop sending notifications but I
>>> think my employer would not like it...
> Short answer:
> You should NEVER notify anyone about detected spam! This will
> effectively make yourself a spam source. It's even worse when you att
On 06/15/2010 11:54 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 6/15/2010 4:30 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Postfix smtp logs outgoing emails like this:
>>>
>>> postfix/smtp[13950]: E6DA025473: to=, relay=none,
>>> delay=4537, delays=4536/0.06/0.53/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=etc...
>>>
>>> I noticed that
On 06/15/2010 11:30 PM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Postfix smtp logs outgoing emails like this:
>>
>> postfix/smtp[13950]: E6DA025473: to=, relay=none,
>> delay=4537, delays=4536/0.06/0.53/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=etc...
>>
>> I noticed that when an email has more than one receipient, smtp w
Hi,
Postfix smtp logs outgoing emails like this:
postfix/smtp[13950]: E6DA025473: to=, relay=none,
delay=4537, delays=4536/0.06/0.53/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=etc...
I noticed that when an email has more than one receipient, smtp will log
separate messages, one for every receipient. Will smtp always
The Doctor wrote:
> Question has anyone in postfix and / or amavis ever seen
> repeating e-amils with binary attachments to them?
I think many subscribers to this list have seen mail loops of all sorts,
perhaps even purposely created such loops (for instance to test
throttling features). So the di
The (imho) nicest solution is to use an LDA which supports sieve. Then
write a small sieve script to move spam to the junk folder. You can use
sieve for all other kinds of mail-sorting as well. Most popular LDA's
support sieve.
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2010-03-25 Chaminda Indrajith wrote:
>> I
Postfix 2.7.0 is stable and thus considered production ready. The
2.7-release features some nice improvements over the 2.6-release,
described in the release notes:
http://postfix.rhinotech.nl/postfix-release/official/postfix-2.7.0.RELEASE_NOTES
There may be several legitimate reasons to stick wit
>>> This whitelist is 1409 records long, so indeed as you say very small. I
>>> suppose I could download it and host it locally. Apparently AXFR is not
>>> allowed, but plain text HTTP download is, so that's good enough.
>>> Then I would only need an efficient and robust way for postfix to use
>>>
Hi,
I have a small question about anvil: every now and then it logs three
lines about statistics. I don't quite understand what they mean. This is
an example:
Mar 17 00:30:49 mx postfix/anvil[28510]: statistics: max connection rate
1/60s for (mx.mydomain.eu:smtp:168.100.1.7) at Mar 17 00:27:28
Ma
On 03/15/2010 11:48 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Erik Logtenberg put forth on 3/15/2010 11:16 AM:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a possibility to use a DNS-based RBL whitelist in Postfix? In
>> The Netherlands we have an NL-Whitelist, which contains the IP's of all
>> ma
>> However in the case where the whitelist is (completely) unavailable for
>> some period of time, I still think that my suggestion applies, don't you
>> agree?
>
> No. It is assumed that you use a sufficiently reliable DNSWL. Ideally
> a local mirror, and if it becomes unavailable you use approp
On 03/15/2010 10:49 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:41:02PM +0100, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
>
>> However the DEFER_IF_REJECT flag makes _all_ mail that would normally be
>> rejected (quite much) be deferred, which imho is quite a sacrifice to
>>
On 03/15/2010 10:37 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 05:15:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
>> Victor Duchovni:
>>> With explicit DNSWL lookups, indeed "defer_if_reject" is acceptable, since
>>> the DWL is operated locally or by a competent provider and persistent temp
>>> fa
>> One of the design issues is what to do if the whitelist query tempfails?
>> if postfix tempfails, then you defer all mail (or a large part). if you
>> pass, then you get "non deterministic" behaviour.
>
> When a DNS blacklist lookup fails, the worst that can happen is unwanted
> mail is accepte
On 03/15/2010 08:44 PM, Wilberth Pérez wrote:
> someone knows how to run postfix on another port in solaris ?
If by "port" you mean "the port smtpd listens on" (there are some more
ports and sockets that postfix uses for different tasks), then take a
look at your master.cf file, and change:
smtp
On 03/15/2010 06:18 PM, Security Admin (NetSec) wrote:
> Running Postfix as a mail gateway, version 2.6.5 and am finally getting
> around to implementing SPF in Postfix. I thought the TXT record in DNS
> would suffice which is how I have been running it.
Please note that according to RFC4408 (SP
>> Is there a possibility to use a DNS-based RBL whitelist in Postfix? In
>> The Netherlands we have an NL-Whitelist, which contains the IP's of all
>> major ISP's. By using this whitelist one can make sure that accidental
>> automatic blacklisting won't disrupt regular email traffic.
>>
>> I had s
Hi,
Is there a possibility to use a DNS-based RBL whitelist in Postfix? In
The Netherlands we have an NL-Whitelist, which contains the IP's of all
major ISP's. By using this whitelist one can make sure that accidental
automatic blacklisting won't disrupt regular email traffic.
I had something lik
>> Small question though, was there any way for me to figure this out by
>> myself using the documentation? I notice that for each daemon there is
>> extensive documentation on which configuration directives are supported,
>> but I didn't see the cleanup_service_name directive mentioned in
>> http
_name directive mentioned in
http://www.postfix.org/smtpd.8.html
Also in http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html there is no explanation
to suggest that this directive can be used in smtpd.
Thanks,
Erik.
On 03/13/2010 02:50 PM, mouss wrote:
> Erik Logtenberg a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I h
Hi,
I have an smtpd listener that functions as an MX (listening on tcp/25,
accepting email for local domains), and a separate smtpd listener that
functions as submission server (listening on tcp/587, using mandatory
TLS and authenticated smtp, allowing relay services).
Now I would like to use head
> People who configure MX records should read the SMTP RFC, in
> particular section 5. "Address Resolution and Mail Handling.
>
> By design, Postfix enforces sane limits on ALL information. In the
> case of SMTP server IP addresses. Such limits protect Postfix
> against abusive sites.
Thank you a
> If your system has no useful IPv6 connectivity, disable IPv6 in Postfix.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/inet_protocols
The issue is that other people with broken IPv6 connectivity have
trouble delivering mail to me, because my mailservers have many
different IP addresses, both IPv4 and IPv6. D
is? Any kind of
denial of service attack that disabling this limit would make possible?
Kind regards,
Erik.
On 03/04/2010 10:27 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Erik Logtenberg:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that Postfix doesn't fall back on other IP addresses
>> associated w
would only give
up on an MX after it tried all available IP addresses. Or at the very
least after trying at least one IPv4 and one IPv6 address, but I'd
strongly prefer trying all available IP addresses before giving up.
Any thoughts?
Kind regards,
Erik Logtenberg.
36 matches
Mail list logo
