On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Jozsef Kadlecsik via Postfix-users:
> > +sasl_username = xsasl_server_get_username(state->sasl_server);
> > +if (sasl_username != 0) {
> > + state->sasl_username = mystrdup(sasl_username)
Hello,
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Has this been tested:
>
> - With Cyrus SASL?
>
> - With Dovecot auth?
It was tested with Cyrus SASL only.
> - With malformed AUTH commands?
No, I tested valid AUTH commands with successful and unsuccessful
authentications
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Jozsef Kadlecsik via Postfix-users wrote:
> However it's a debug mode, cannot be used in production. It is clear that
> SASL protocol is not implemented and thus the messages have no meaning,
> just reported. However, it seems the data is there and available.
Hi Wietse,
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Jozsef Kadlecsik via Postfix-users:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there a way to get the SASL username logged for the failed
> > authentications together with the client IP data? Postfix can log half
Hi,
Is there a way to get the SASL username logged for the failed
authentications together with the client IP data? Postfix can log half of
the information the connecting client IP address, while Cyrus saslauthd
the second one the username. However there's no clear way (except the
timestamp) t
e sender/recipient
> > > > pairs
> > > > that are (with "default deny") or aren't (with "default allow") allowed
> > > > to
> > > > send mail to each other?
> > >
> > > Long ago Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote code that
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, Alex wrote:
> I still have to consider much of what you've written before I can
> respond, but I wanted to be sure my design was clear here - it's not so
> much that end-users are modifying the config in the same way as webmin
> does, like making changes directly to main.cf,
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 10.06.20 12:48, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> > handled@by.exchange handled@by.dovecot,handled@by.exchange
> >
> > The problem is that the address handled@by.dovecot receives every email
> > sent to handled
Hello,
We have a virtual_alias_maps entry like this
handled@by.exchange handled@by.dovecot,handled@by.exchange
The problem is that the address handled@by.dovecot receives every email
sent to handled@by.exchange twice: handled@by.exchange is expanded before
amavisd is called, and also after
Hi,
Is there a way to setup 2FA in SMTP auth (with postfix) when the client is
Outlook? It seems it does not support either GSSAPI (Kerberos) or client
cert auth.
Is there any way to get a working 2FA with Outlook in a non MS
environment?
Thanks any tips!
Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail : kad
On Wed, 2 May 2018, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > What would be the best way to identify email which is forwarded to
> > external addresses by .forward, procmail or sieve rules?
> >
> > We have control over the mail gateways which handle all incoming-outgoing
> > traffic, but no real access to the i
Hi,
What would be the best way to identify email which is forwarded to
external addresses by .forward, procmail or sieve rules?
We have control over the mail gateways which handle all incoming-outgoing
traffic, but no real access to the internal servers where the forward
rules may be entered.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, @lbutlr wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 4:57 AM, Jozsef Kadlecsik
> wrote:
> > Is this a normal practice? Why does google groups strip existing DKIM
> > signatures?
>
> YOU are not the sender of the mailing list message, google groups is.
From: addr
Hello,
We have introduced DKIM signing for our domains and strict checking for
the incoming mail. One of our users sent an email to a google group, and
from the log I can see that it was signed:
Jan 24 18:02:54 smtp2 amavis[6230]: (06230-01) Passed CLEAN
{RelayedOutbound}, ORIGINATING LOCAL ..
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postscreen does DNSXL lookups in parallel, and they make take several
> seconds to complete, so the occasional delay or lost packet does not
> adversely impact postscreen's performance.
>
> Postscreen database updates must be fast because they are syn
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > We are happy users of postscreen. However it'd be great if there was
> > > a method in Postfix to call dynamix DNS updates as an action.
> >
> > This requires a Postfix table lookup interface just like lmdb,
> > btree, and memcached. Note that "da
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > We are happy users of postscreen. However it'd be great if there was a
> > method in Postfix to call dynamix DNS updates as an action. That way
> > for example the shared cache for postscreen could be "converted" into
> > a DNS table maintained dyna
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015, Marius Gologan wrote:
> If postscreen_access_list supports TCP table lookup, you may build
> something using spawn and a script behind.
As far as I know TCP table lookups are... lookups. "put" is not
implemented.
Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail : kad...@blackhole.kfki.hu, k
Hi,
We are happy users of postscreen. However it'd be great if there was a
method in Postfix to call dynamix DNS updates as an action. That way for
example the shared cache for postscreen could be "converted" into a DNS
table maintained dynamically. Is it feasible? Or it wouldn't fit into the
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jozsef Kadlecsik :
>
> > I dunno. We had the newest squirrelmail (1.4.22) and still two times user
> > sessions were hijacked and used for spamming. The users could not recall
> > what they exactly did, unfortunately.
&g
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> Am 10.05.2012 19:09, schrieb john:
> >
> > I/we use Squirrelmail and while we have not had any problems with it I
> > wonder (and as this is this list seems to be the home of email gurus) if
> > there are any recommendations as to a better solution,
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > So, we can do as much as we can on our side, but if users make
> > errors, and miss talking to us, it will be hard to avoid it in
> > total, so if there is any best practice on this, that would be
> > indeed helpful.
>
> Best practice is to do what Mail
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 3/9/2010 10:32 PM, VR wrote:
> > I have Postfix running on Debian in front of Microsoft Exchange 2003
> > using transport_maps, relay_domains and relay_recipient_maps. This
> > Postfix configuration is purely for inbound SMTP traffic.
> >
> > Is there a
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jozsef Kadlecsik:
> >
> > How could one achieve that the held messages are separated from the normal
> > traffic (i.e. hold queue on another partition), but if the messages cannot
> > be held, then those gets rejected in
Hello,
We plan to add the possibility for our users to choose that messages
categorized as spam are put on the hold queue instead of the default
reject. Thus it'll be possible to release the false positives, which
can make life easier for them.
Currently I can see two ways to accomplish it, bo
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Postfix logs all deliveries - deliveries not made are not logged.
>
> We cannot find the messages in the mail queue either.
>
> The client machine is switched off for the week
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri 04 Sep 2009 05:47:01 PM CEST, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote
>
> > Home-breed, but free to use by anyone:
> > http://www.kfki.hu/cnc/projekt/postfilter/.
>
> policy_ordb = rbl:client_address:domain=relays.ordb.org
>
>
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:57:09PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Jozsef Kadlecsik:
> > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jozsef Kadlecsik:
> > > > > The pol
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Jozsef Kadlecsik:
> > The policyd can't generate log entries out of the blue - but why those
> > messages were not logged then by postfix?
>
> What policyd messages are you referring to?
Home-breed, but free to use by anyon
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jozsef Kadlecsik :
>
> > According to the postfix log, the client did not send any email
> > successfully at that time and there's no reference to the queue ids again.
> > However, from the policy daemon log, th
Hello,
One of our client machines has got suspected as a possible spam source
simply due to the high number of messages sent from it according to the
logreport generated by our policy daemon. However, when (double)checking
the postfix log, the messages reported by the policyd could not be found
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:55:40PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
> > > Recently I am thinking of reimplementing our MX servers. Of course rcpt
> > > check is a must, also I should not generate NDRs later, I should only
> > > accept
> >
> >
> > This is al
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Gábor Lénárt :
>
> > > This is a backscatter source and will get you blacklisted in no time.
> >
> > Hmm, what would be if someone use a policy server, rejecting the mail with
> > the link for the captcha URL in it.
>
> That sound interesting. It
33 matches
Mail list logo
