[pfx] Re: Recommended postscreen_dnsbl_sites settings to get some security without too many blocked emails?

Christian Seberino via Postfix-users wrote: > postscreen_dnsbl_threshold = 2 > postscreen_dnsbl_sites = zen.spamhaus.org*2 bl.spamcop.net*1 > b.barracudacentral.org*1 > > Is there a "minimal" setting for these two variables that will > give *some* protection without blocking friendly sites by a

[pfx] Re: Postfix and Spamhaus

Michael Grimm via Postfix-users wrote: > Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote: > > [Spamhaus DQS] > >> Did you switch? How long is "mykey"? > > Mine has 27 characters. Me bad, make that 26 chars. Regards, Michael

[pfx] Re: Postfix and Spamhaus

Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote: [Spamhaus DQS] > Did you switch? How long is "mykey"? Mine has 27 characters. Don't know if they all have the same size, though. Regards, Michael ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To uns

[pfx] Re: DANE and STS

Michael Grimm wrote: > [see Viktors link: http://dnssec-stats.ant.isi.edu/~viktor/x3hosts.html] > correction: http://dnssec-stats.ant.isi.edu/~viktor/x3hosts.html Regards, Michael ___ Postfix

[pfx] Re: DANE and STS

Gerd Hoerst via Postfix-users wrote: > I checked my cert and it related to R10 , but i will also publish the rest > regarding you advice I do recommend investigating '3 1 1' records, instead. "Hence, my best advice is to not play Let's Encrypt whack-a-mole, and use "3 1 1" records with st

[pfx] Re: discard message

Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users > wrote: >>> One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/ >> >> Please correct me if I am mistaken, but that won't catch sc

[pfx] Re: discard message

Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Paul Schmehl via Postfix-users: >> This is what I could match on: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=2.1 >> >> If the score was higher than some number (e.g >4) than reject the mail. > > One could try some variant of /^X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=[5-9]/ Please cor

[pfx] Re: postfix 3.8.4, missing inet_protocols setting in main.cf, and postfix' post-install script

Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote > Michael Grimm via Postfix-users: >> Very recently I re-enabled IPv6 on my servers, and removed my >> 'inet_protocols=ipv4' from main.cf and did *not* add 'inet_protocols=all' >> because I checked for the defa

[pfx] postfix 3.8.4, missing inet_protocols setting in main.cf, and postfix' post-install script

Hi, I am running postfix 3.8.4 on FreeBSD 14.0-STABLE and recompile postfix (and all my other ports) on a regular basis (by poudriere). Very recently I re-enabled IPv6 on my servers, and removed my 'inet_protocols=ipv4' from main.cf and did *not* add 'inet_protocols=all' because I checked for

[pfx] Re: Redirect deferred mails via IP4 or IP6 addresses (automatically)

Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 07:36:37PM +0100, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users > wrote: >> But will that work, once a mail has been deferred and is sitting in the >> queue already? >> Meaning, if a 'postqueue -f&

[pfx] Re: Redirect deferred mails via IP4 or IP6 addresses (automatically)

Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 04:02:48PM +0100, Michael Grimm via Postfix-users > wrote: >> Sometimes outgoing mail is deferred due to "reputational issues" at >> the receiving side. These "reputational issues" mostly

[pfx] Re: Redirect deferred mails via IP4 or IP6 addresses (automatically)

Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Michael Grimm via Postfix-users: >>> Postfix has a "rule based language" for receiving mail, but there >>> is no such thing for outbound deliveries. >> >> I am only curious of how much functionality would be

[pfx] Re: Redirect deferred mails via IP4 or IP6 addresses (automatically)

Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > Michael Grimm via Postfix-users: >> Sometimes outgoing mail is deferred due to "reputational issues" >> at the receiving side. These "reputational issues" mostly concerned >> my IP6 addresses, thus I removed IP6

[pfx] Redirect deferred mails via IP4 or IP6 addresses (automatically)

[FreeBSD 14-STABLE, postfix 3.8.4, dovecot 2.3.21, rspamd 3.7.5] Hi Sometimes outgoing mail is deferred due to "reputational issues" at the receiving side. These "reputational issues" mostly concerned my IP6 addresses, thus I removed IP6 mailing completely. But now, I do want to give it a try,

[pfx] Re: 25 years today

Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > As a few on this list may recall, it is 25 years ago today that the > "IBM secure mailer" had its public beta release. […] > That was a long time ago. Postfix has evolved as the Internet has > changed. I am continuing the overhaul of this software, motiv

[pfx] Re: body_checks not catching all backscatter

Sebastian Wiesinger via Postfix-users wrote > Thanks Peter but I will never ever, as long as I live, use anything > connected to UCEProtect. +1 Regards, Michael ___ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email t

[pfx] Re: E-mail problem

Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote: > So I have a bizarre problem. I can't send e-mail to some servers but I can to > others. The e-mail that doesn't get sent is due to the connection timing out > to the remote server. > > Another strange problem is that some people can e-mail me while others

[pfx] Re: Painful Postfix

Kolusion K via Postfix-users wrote: > When I open a raw socket to the remote server on port 25 using telnet, I am > able to connect and see the server announce itself […] Then, do continue to provide all essential *FURTHER* commands via telnet and see and report what happens. Michael

[P-U] Re: sys4 is listed in Abusix

Patrick Ben Koetter via Postfix-users wrote: > * Michael Grimm via Postfix-users : >> toganm--- via Postfix-users wrote: >> >>> Maybe it would have been a better idea to check if the mail server is listed >>> in any rbl sites. >> >> If you real

[P-U] Re: sys4 is listed in Abusix

toganm--- via Postfix-users wrote: > Maybe it would have been a better idea to check if the mail server is listed > in any rbl sites. If you really were in mailing business for some time you would know how RBLs work: They react, they do not read crystal balls! Regards, Michael ___