Hi everybody,
I'm looking for a software to perform URIBLDNS body checks to use as a
before-queue filter.
The main requirement is massive speed (<100ms scan time), thus I am
avoiding amavisd-new + spamassassin, even with tuned rules, in favor of
something written in a compiled language. Suppor
ummary:
current situation: internet -> mx
wanted configuration: internet -> relay -> mx, with the same allowed
recipients
Please let me know if you need more information on my setup.
Thanks,
Fabio Sangiovanni
Viktor Dukhovni
dukhovni.org> writes:
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 06:52:52PM
+0200, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
>
> > I've noticed that the syntax:
> >
> > smtpd_sender_restrictions =
pcre:/etc/postfix/sender_access
> >
> &
you please point
me to the right direction?
Thanks,
Fabio Sangiovanni
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Fabio Sangiovanni:
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps supports different syntax
> than transport_maps.
>
> Both support the form "name:" and "name" (both mean the same thing).
> That's where the
Fabio Sangiovanni nweb.it> writes:
> Is someone willing to clarify this a little?
Sorry if I quote myself, but what about this?
Is it to be considered an error in the docs?
I'm referring to the possibility to specify a
null nexthop in sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> In the end, it appears that the more verbose configuration language
> wins.
Thanks, this should also get rid of the double instance + content filter.
It should work properly, and let's hope requirements don't change :)
Fabio
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Wietse Venema:
> > Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
> > to solve, instead of your solution (routing <> senders differently).
> > It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
> > language, which is
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Would it be possible to describe the problem that you are trying
> to solve, instead of your solution (routing <> senders differently).
> It is an uncommon requirement. Arbitrary routing requires a procedural
> language, which is currently not included wi
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
> > One question: since sender_dependent_default_transport_maps overrides
> > default_transport, how can I have this within a relay domain configuration?
>
> The Postfix instance before the content filter sends *all mail* to
> the content filter. This simpl
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Fabio Sangiovanni:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > from the docs of sender_dependent_default_transport_maps:
> > "Note: this overrides default_transport, not transport_maps, and
> > therefore the expected syntax is that
.cf:
mytransport unix - - n - - smtp
-o smtp_generic_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/generic
What am I missing here?
Thanks a lot
Fabio Sangiovanni
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
First of all, thanks for the answer.
> The Postfix instance before
> the content filter uses sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
> to send mail with a null sender to the first smtp transport,
> and everything else to the second smtp transp
t it doesn't
work properly in case of multiple recipients.
Have you any suggestions?
Thanks a lot for your help.
Fabio Sangiovanni
Il 10/06/13 16:26, v.dimit...@synergetic.ag ha scritto:
You may use something like this:
bcc_table:
address | enabled
| 1
spec...@example.com | 1
SELECT case when `enabled` then 'other_...@example.com' else
'default_...@example.com' end FROM `bcc_table` where `address` in ('%s','')
order by
Hi list,
I need to setup recipient_bcc_maps to get the following behaviour:
- by default, I need every message to be BBC'd to default_...@example.com
- for particular recipients, I need the message to be BCC'd to
other_...@example.com (and to this address only)
- I need particular recipients t
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> Viktor Dukhovni:
> >src/smtpd/smtpd_resolve.c:
> > lowercase(STR(reply->recipient)); /* XXX */
>
> This may have escaped the code cleanup when forced lowercase
> was removed from access maps.
>
> Wietse
>
>
Thanks for your
Viktor Dukhovni dukhovni.org> writes:
> Sorry, I don't do pastebins. If you want help include the relevant
> information in your message.
Relevant (long piece of) information included at the end of this message :)
> Addresses used in access checks are case folded in Postfix upstream
> of the
Viktor Dukhovni dukhovni.org> writes:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:44:45PM +0100, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
>
> > $ postmap -q 'test domain.tld' \
> > regexp:/etc/postfix/check_recipient_access.regexp
> > REJECT wrong format
> >
Viktor Dukhovni dukhovni.org> writes:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:35:48PM +0100, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to figure out how case sensitivity works in a
> > check_recipient_access regexp table (Postfix 2.6.6).
>
> Try the documentat
Hello list,
I'm trying to figure out how case sensitivity works in a
check_recipient_access regexp table (Postfix 2.6.6).
This is my main.cf:
alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
allow_min_user = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
config_directory = /etc/postfix
dae
Viktor Dukhovni dukhovni.org> writes:
> Replace "OK" with:
>
> /etc/postfix/whitelist_client.cidr:
> 192.0.2.1/32permit_sasl_authenticated
>
Sorry Viktor,
I have another question: what happens if a client is whitelisted AND it fails
SASL authentication?
I suppose that the foll
Noel Jones megan.vbhcs.org> writes:
> Your method of manually whitelisting any IP that happens to be
> spamhaus listed doesn't scale very well. Every time some authorized
> user travels somewhere, stops at a wifi hotspot, or their home IP
> changes, will need to call you to get whitelisted before
Noel Jones megan.vbhcs.org> writes:
> Seems like the easiest solution is to put permit_sasl_authenticated
> BEFORE reject_rbl_client. Then no whitelisting is needed.
>
> -- Noel Jones
Hi, thanks for your answer.
Yes, that would be useful, except for malware that steals your credentials,
and
Viktor Dukhovni dukhovni.org> writes:
>
> Replace "OK" with:
>
> /etc/postfix/whitelist_client.cidr:
> 192.0.2.1/32permit_sasl_authenticated
>
Awesome. I totally missed this part of documentation:
http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
[...]
OTHER ACTIONS
restriction...
Hello list,
I'm running a Postfix (2.6.6) server used by my company's customers to
submit mail.
Source IPs are not known in advance, so normally we grant relay access
using SASL authentication.
Additionally, we need to prevent as much as possible submissions from
unauthorized clients using sto
Hello list,
I'm using postfix 2.6.6 with cyrus-sasl (saslauthd + pam_mysql).
Everything works ok, except that I've noticed that users can login successfully
using their username with an arbitrary @domain part, that is I see login
success in 2 cases:
- username = user
- username = u...@whatever.d
> Thanks, I routinely use a "double word" detector, but I don't have
> a "double multi-word" detector.
>
> Wietse
>
I'm glad I was of help :)
Have a nice day!
Fabio
Hi,
I'd like to point out a possibile typo at
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#qmgr_message_recipient_limit:
[…] the maximal *size of the size* of the short-term, in-memory "dead"
destination status cache.
Thanks,
Fabio Sangiovanni
Hi Noel,
thanks, I'll follow your advice.
Fabio
Il giorno 10/feb/2012, alle ore 17:44, Noel Jones ha scritto:
> On 2/10/2012 2:36 AM, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
>> Hi Wietse,
>>
>> thanks a lot for your help.
>> One last question: in order to redirect mail from
9/feb/2012, alle ore 19:31, Wietse Venema ha scritto:
> Fabio Sangiovanni:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need to configure Postfix to get the following result: I need
>> every mail submitted by users to be redirected to a remote account
>> (via SMTP or LMTP), and every message must
Hi,
I need to configure Postfix to get the following result: I need every mail
submitted by users to be redirected to a remote account (via SMTP or LMTP), and
every message must contain an header with the original envelope rcpt.
Example:
user MUA submits 2 messages, one for a...@domain1.com and
r to a spool storage on database.
Thanks again,
Fabio
Il giorno 08/feb/2012, alle ore 12:52, Simone Caruso ha scritto:
> On 08/02/2012 10:19, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
>> it receives mail (from user SMTP submission, not as final destination) and,
>> instead of relay, "does s
Hello list,
my apologies in advance for the almost OT question.
I need to setup a mail server that does a particular thing: it receives mail
(from user SMTP submission, not as final destination) and, instead of relay,
"does something" that ends up in having the mail (body + headers + attachments
Il giorno 30/08/11 00:20, "Wietse Venema" ha
scritto:
>To view the built-in defaults, use "postconf -d".
>
>To view the main.cf settings, use "postconf -n".
>
> Wietse
>
>
Of course, my mistake (again). Fortunately the output of "postconf -d" has
turned out to be the same.
Thanks a lot for
Il giorno 29/08/11 18:56, "Noel Jones" ha scritto:
>On 8/29/2011 11:20 AM, Fabio Sangiovanni wrote:
>
>> So default values are defined at compile time, aren't they?
>>
>
>Yes, and FWIW, I don't expect the official default values of
>parent_doma
Il giorno 29/08/11 17:54, "Noel Jones" ha scritto:
>Really? You have documentation to back that up?
>
>
>
>
> -- Noel Jones
>
>
Well I think this is the answer I was looking for :)
I have found this bug report
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postfix/+bug/242383 and I
thought it was s
Hello everybody,
I'm a new user of Postfix and a new member of the list as well.
I think I've found an error in Postfix documentation, specifically in the
BASIC_CONFIGURATION_README file.
>From the paragraph "What destinations to relay mail to":
"The default is to authorize all domains (and subd
38 matches
Mail list logo
